Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PLEASURE BOAT "DARLWIN"

11.8 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Merlyn Rees): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
On Wednesday, 3rd August, I spoke to the House about the arrangements made for searching areas off the coast of Cornwall for the missing pleasure vessel "Darlwin". As the House will be aware, there have been further developments of which I should like to give an account. On Wednesday, the Shackleton which I reported as airborne at midday actually arrived in the area at 3.30 p.m. and remained on task until last light. The search was resumed at first light on Thursday, and at 6.22 a.m. a Shackleton located wreckage and two bodies in the search area, south east of Dodman Point, which is virtually the datum point on which the search was based.
Two further bodies in the same area were subsequently located by an R.N. helicopter. The four bodies and a lifebelt were subsequently brought to Falmouth by R.N.L.I. lifeboats. Some of these have now been positively identified as having been passengers on the "Darlwin".
The Shackleton search continued until last light yesterday. All day R.N. and R.A.F. helicopters were also out. Today, Friday, the search is being carried out by a Shackleton, and helicopters will be used to investigate any wreckage or bodies found.
When I spoke to the House on Wednesday, it was at short notice and I was not able to check every detail as closely as I should have wished. On that occasion, I said that on 1st August the Shackleton was on task from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., whereas the actual times were from 10 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. The changed times do not reflect delay. The first helicopter

was despatched from Chivenor to the search area at 6.5 a.m. within 13 minutes of the request for air assistance. It was when the initial search area had been covered without sign of the vessel, wreckage or survivors that it was decided to extend the search area. It was for this reason that the Shackleton took off at 10 a.m. in order to make sure every contingency was covered. The inshore search was continued with helicopters.
The wreckage found yesterday came to the surface in the middle of the initial search area. I hope this will be accepted as vindicating the judgment of the experts who determined what this area should be. The search is still going on under the direction of the R.A.F. Rescue/Co-ordination Centre at Plymouth as it has since the search began.
I am sure that the House will wish me to pay tribute to the Navy, the R.A.F. the Coastguards, the Lifeboat Service and all who have helped in any way in this operation.
Once more I want to express also the sympathy of the House to the relatives and friends of the victims of this tragedy.
If I may add something for the convenience of the House, as I was coming into the House I was informed that at the moment a helicopter is also out and that very recently, I can give no precise information, further wreckage has been found.

Mr. Sharples: May I from this side of the House add our tributes to all those in the Services, the coastguards, the lifeboat services and others who have taken part in this operation. It certainly seems that everything possible was done and that all those concerned acted in the highest traditions of the Services to which they are connected.
There is one question that I would like to ask, and that is whether the House can be told if the wreckage was found in the area of the dangerous shoals and reefs which lie off Dodman Point?

Mr. Rees: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. With regard to his question, I can say that this is so. I am informed it is two miles off Dodman Point.

Mr. Bessell: May I also, on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends and my


constituents, express deepest sympathy with the relatives of the missing persons, and may I further add that I am satisfied that everything possible was done in the circumstances to effect this search. May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he accepts that the facts which I gave to the House, as they were supplied to me, by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, on Wednesday, were substantially correct?

Mr. Rees: Mr. Rees No, Sir. I have inquired into this very carefully, even in the last hour. The hon. Gentleman quite correctly telephoned the private office of my right hon. Friend. There are two aspects of this. First of all, with regard to the information which the hon. Gentleman gave in the House concerning what happened on Monday, which I denied in the House on Wednesday, it is denied absolutely that these facts were given to the hon. Gentleman. With regard to the Wednesday aspect of things, the hon. Gentleman telephoned the private office and it telephoned the office of my noble Friend the Minister. The office's instructions are to be as helpful as possible, and it gave the hon. Gentleman information as it was happening. I have looked at a television broadcast in which the hon. Gentleman took part last evening, and all that I can say in this brief moment is that he has misunderstood what was happening at that time. So far as the events of Monday are concerned, I said in the House on Wednesday that a Shackleton and a helicopter were flying all day and that there was no question of it being withdrawn or even recalled. That is in the record of the House two days ago.

Mr. Bessell: In view of the hon. Gentleman's statement, may I affirm again, without any equivocation whatever, that the information which I gave to the House about the events on Monday was that which was supplied to me by the private office of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade? I have a witness to this conversation. Furthermore, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the facts as I gave them to the House relating to the subsequent events on Tuesday and Wednesday morning were correct?

Mr. Rees: I repeat again that there can be no question about what happened on

Monday, because I gave the facts of the matter to the House two days ago. I am only sorry that last night, I am given to understand, the hon. Gentleman used the earlier information yet again. It is very difficult to deal with particular points across the Floor of the House at the moment, but I dealt with the circumstances of Tuesday and Wednesday on Wednesday, and I am quite satisfied that everything possible was done to deal with this case. There is no doubt in my mind whatever. I understand that it has been suggested that the R.A.F. took off only because private aircraft were taking off. That is not true. Statements of that kind only do a great deal of harm to the morale of a very great group of Service men and R.N.L.I. and coastguard men who have been working extremely hard for the last week.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement and strongly associate myself with his last remarks. These men are experts and this is not the first search which they have carried out. They work extremely hard and very long hours and they have been on the job all the week. In the West Country, we thank them very much for their constant vigil, and we would also like to thank the lifeboat men and the Navy and those other services which have been on watch all week.

Mr. Rees: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody) for her remarks. I know that she, too, has been in touch with the Board of Trade. She had a word with me just before I spoke in the House on Wednesday and I know her great interest in this matter.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot pursue this further now.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. Is it not possible to ask a question in order to help to avoid future tragedies of this kind, Mr. Speaker? Will you not allow one question?

Mr. Speaker: That is a request to which I will respond.

Sir Knox Cunningham: As it now seems certain that there has been a tragic loss of life, will the hon. Gentleman ask


his right hon Friend to order a formal inquiry into this loss under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894?

Mr. Rees: That is not the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, of course, but I will convey the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks to the proper quarter.

CONFERENCE ON ELECTORA REFORM

Mr. Speaker: I wish to make a brief statement.
On 25th April, I announced that at the request of the Prime Minister I had agreed to reconstitute the Conference on Electoral Law; and, on 8th July, I informed the House of the names of the hon. Members who had accepted my invitation to serve on the new Conference.
The Conference in the last Parliament reported its recommendations on certain matters relating to the registration of electors, the franchise, absent voting and candidates' election expenses. Many other matters within the terms of reference—in particular, the minimum age for voting and methods of election—remain for the consideration of the new Conference which will resume its meetings after the Summer Adjournment. In the meantime, it is still open to hon. Members, party organisations and other bodies concerned to submit representations if they have not already done so. Any such representations should be sent to the Joint Secretaries at the Journal Office, House of Commons, by 30th September.

Orders of the Day — SINGAPORE BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — RESERVE FORCES BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Schedule 1.—(MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 21, line 21, at beginning insert "Section 30(2) and"

11.15 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. David Ennals): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It will be for the convenience of the House if with this we also discuss the remaining Lords Amendment, in Schedule 2, page 24, leave out lines 41 and 42 and insert "Section 30(2)".

Mr. Speaker: If the Opposition have no objection.

Mr. Ennals: I need give only a brief explanation. The effect of the Amendments is to remove the obligation on lieutenants of counties to appoint as many as 20 deputy lieutenants. Until the Bill becomes law, only persons with military qualifications, or other qualifications connected with the Services, are eligible for appointment as deputy lieutenants. As a result of Clause 20, persons with other qualifications can in future be appointed. However, Section 30(2) of the Militia Act, 1882 says:
In every county twenty persons at least, or if so many persons cannot be found duly qualified, then all the duly qualified persons living within the county, shall, subject as herein-after mentioned, be appointed deputy lieutenants.
Unless we amend Section 30(2) counties will be obliged to appoint at least 20 deputy lieutenants. Some smaller counties have appointed fewer than 20, some as few as 10, and it must be assumed that qualified persons have not been available.
We have now broadened the qualifications to include suitable individuals who lack a military background, but, unless the Amendments are accepted, we shall oblige lieutenants to complete their complements. This may lead to a disproportionate number of people without military qualifications. It is also probably true that some lieutenants in smaller counties do not wish to appoint their full complement and we do not see why in modern conditions they should be obliged to do so.
In Standing Committee B on 30th June, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) suggested that instead of broadening the qualifications to include those without military experience, we should reduce or under-implement the establishment. We still wish to broaden the qualifications and we have no wish to reduce the establishment, but we wish to give lieutenants complete discretion to under-implement the establishment and that is the purpose of the Lords Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DRUGS (PREVENTION OF MISUSE)

11.20 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): I beg to move,
That the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 Modification Order, 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st July, be approved.
The purpose of this Order is to add certain drugs, all of which can cause hallucinations and including one normally known as LSD 25, to the Schedule to the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1964. Hon. Members will hardly need to be reminded that this drug has recently been much in the news both here and in America. Newspapers have given us reports of the sometimes quite startling effects that LSD can have on its users.
Only the other day we had the controversial B.B.C. television programme to which reference has already been made in this House. According to a certain report in a British newspaper a girl is seriously ill in hospital having fallen 50 feet from a bedroom window. She was reported to have said that she had been taking LSD and thought that she could fly. In another place yesterday my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office said that he knew people who thought they could fly on four pints of beer. The difference between that and the effects of this drug is that while people may think that they can fly on four pints of beer, I have never known anyone who has actually attempted it.
Serious medical journals have reported equally disturbing examples of the effects of this drug. A learned paper in America has drawn attention to the case of a doctor who, having taken LSD as an experiment, developed an estatic state under a strong compulsion to jump into a lake, which very nearly resulted in his death from drowning. There are other reports of deaths, both suicide and murder, actually being caused by a person's actions while under the influence of this drug.
I shall not take up the time of the House with other examples, but there is no doubt that its effects can be very harmful indeed unless its use is most strictly controlled. I should remind the House of the existing controls. Since 1965 LSD has been included in the Fourth Schedule to the Poisons Rule


which restricted its retail sale to sales on prescription from registered premises by or under the supervision of a qualified pharmacist. The drug came under even stricter control last month when effect was given to a recommedation by the Poisons Board that only qualified doctors or bona fide research workers should be allowed to obtain supplies.
This new rule came into operation on 6th July. The Order we are now debating gives effect to another recommendation of the Poisons Board made at the same time. That is that LSD and similar substances should also be controlled under the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1964. I should explain that the Home Secretary is required by the Act to consult the Board before modifying the Schedule. The effect of this new control will be that the manufacturers of the substances to be added to the Schedule and those who deal in them in bulk are required to be registered. The import of the substances will be prohibited except under licence and, what is more important, all persons unless they have professional needs to obtain the drug other than on prescription will be committing an offence.
Hon. Members will notice that this Order excludes from control living plants or plant seeds containing certain of the substances mentioned or their salts. It has been established that very small quantities of substances which are similar to LSD 25, although much less harmful in their effects, may be present in one of the particular species of "Morning Glory" seeds. That is the species ipomoea violacea, which is available in this country. However, there is a very strong consensus of expert opinion based on clinical research conducted in the United States that the risk arising from the misuse of these seeds is negligible.
So much for the background of the Order. For the record, and I hope for the convenience of the House and those who trade legitimately in these substances, I shall now describe briefly what the Order does. As I have said, it adds certain hallucigenic substances to the Schedule of the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act. At first sight the Order may seem rather complicated—it certainly seemed so to me. The Schedule to the Act, which has not so far been modified, was cast in a form to cover not only

specific substances and compounds but also their salts and substances containing any proportion of the substances, compounds or salts. In order to add substances to the Schedule we therefore have to interpolate three paragraphs and to recast some of the existing ones. LSD25, or to give it its full name lysergic acid diethylamide, is the most potent substance which the Order will bring under the control of the Act. The substance is a modified alkaloid of ergot, which in extremely small doses produces profound effects upon mental functions, including changes in perception and visual hallucinations. It has been used in this country and elsewhere in the investigation of mental illness. Doctors are generally agreed that it can have very harmful effects when used without medical supervision. In America there has grown up something of a cult for psychodelic drugs of this kind and in recent months evidence of interest in these substances has been found among drug-takers here.
Hon. Members may have seen the thoughtful editorial in the British Medical Journal of 18th June which said:
it would be prudent to deal with LSD forthwith on the same legal and administrative lines as we have found necessary for amphetamine.
This is what this Order will ensure. In view of the concern expressed about this potent substance we are anxious to strengthen control over it as soon as practicable. In the view of the Poisons Board the new control should be applied by using a generic description to ensure that any new analogous compound may be automatically controlled. Among the more important of the existing analogous compounds are lysergic acid amide and isolysergic acid amide, which are about one-twentieth as powerful as LSD25. Psilocybin is another hallucinogenic drug capable of being misused and the generic description of this drug is given in paragraph 5(c). Mescaline, which is comparable in effect to LSD25 but much less potent, is controlled by paragraph 5(e) of the Schedule to the Order. There is a very restricted trade in the cactus from which this substance is derived and my right hon. Friend has been advised that no harm would be done by allowing this to continue. Provision is made for this by the exemption under paragraph 7(a).
I would stress that the Order will in no way interfere with the use of these substances by qualified psychiatrists, as an


aid to psycho-therapy, or by research workers, but it will place them under stricter controls and, by making unauthorised possession an offence, will assist the police to combat misuse of these substances and the trafficking to which this may give rise.
I would warn of the consequences to those people who might in future, even with this Order, obtain some of these substances illegally. First of all, if it is found in their possession, they will be subject to prosecution. But the greatest danger to them would not be the prosecution but the tragic consequences of injury or death which could follow from taking this drug.
We had a debate on drugs as a whole on Wednesday night. As I said then, this problem cannot be dealt with by police action alone. We must all be very vigilant. Parents, doctors, social workers and the public must help play their part in checking drug abuse.

11.32 a.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: The right hon. Lady has undoubtedly blinded us with science. I was not aware that, in addition to her other charms and qualifications, she had become such a qualified chemist. I can supplement her personal experience. I have known people who tried to fly without the use of this substance. There was a very famous member of the Acton family when I was an undergraduate who jumped out of a first-floor window. When asked why he had done this, he said that he wanted to find out what it was like to be a pigeon. We said that pigeons did not usually break their collarbones or make a large dent in the ground when they landed. Thus these are not the only substances which can have consequences of this kind.
There is little to be said about the Order. We support it. We have been pressing the Government for some time to take more effective measures for the control of drugs and I believe that this is their first modest step towards complying with our request. I have a question and a comment. My question is this. When the right hon. Lady's noble Friend last month was talking about drug taking and this particular substance, LSD25, in another place, he said:

The position is that Section 12 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 permits a substance to be scheduled only if the United Nations Narcotics Commission or the World Health Organisation decide or appear likely to decide that the substance should be controlled under a Single Convention."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 30th June 1966; Vol. 275, c. 836.]
He said that this was very difficult, that international agreement had to be obtained and that the Convention was not designed to control drugs other than narcotics. He added, however, that he could add drugs to the Schedule of the 1964 Act, subject to consultation with the Poisons Board, as, apparently has now been done.
What chance, if any, is there of adding these substances to the international Convention? It would obviously assist any police measures which we take under the Orders if other countries would cooperate in controlling these substances, some of which have a false glamour because of the literary works of prominent authors. This is especially true of Mescaline, which has been praised by authors who should have known better.
This is a very modest step. We shall not get much further with the control of drugs until we legislate in order that we can apply enforcement to the places where they are peddled. This is very easily done, if only hon. Members opposite would put a due sense of social priority into their legislative programme.

11.35 a.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I am glad that the right hon. Lady has brought this drug within the Schedule and I hope that she will bring further drugs within it. I became interested in the subject of drug peddling when I was Chairman of a Standing Committee dealing with the Manchester Corporation Bill. This introduced Clauses for the control of teen-age dance clubs and coffee bars in Manchester, which has been done to clear up the drug situation there. It has opened my eyes to what is going on. I had no idea then of the sort of things which happened in these clubs.
That led me to introduce a Bill called the Entertainment Clubs Bill, rather more than a year ago, which the Home Office said they could not take up because they were going to have discussions with the Chief Constables on the subject. However, I am glad to note that the Lord


Chief Justice has now promoted almost the same Bill and that the Home Office are now paying attention to this. That only reinforces the old adage of Sir Winston Churchill, "It does not matter what you say, but it matters who says it."
I have had a great deal of information of all types on this subject, some from reliable sources. I have visited about half a dozen of these clubs in London, where it is said that drugs circulate. These clubs are rather dingy, disreputable places in cellars, some completely filled with teenagers dancing shoulder to shoulder. Others are more dreary and cater mainly for men——

Mr. Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's admirable remarks, but we are discussing a narrow Order which proposes to add certain drugs to a list. He must keep to the Order.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I will try to keep to the Order, Mr. Speaker, but I want to explain where these things circulate.
They are hidden in lavatories in clubs, they are put into coat pockets in cloakrooms and so on. The weak link in the distribution of dangerous drugs is the warehouses, as anyone who has an account with a warehouse, even if he is not a chemist, can order drugs. We know that warehouses are full of dangerous drugs of various types. There was a theft last week, to which I drew the right hon. Lady's attention yesterday, in which 200,000 drugs, mainly amphetamines were stolen.
I suggest that the right hon. Lady gives further attention to the control of the circulation of drugs through the warehouses, which do not seem to be under the control which they should be——

Mr. Speaker: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to keep to the Order. This is not a debate on the wording of the Drugs Act.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I will come to the Order. My main point is that the right hon. Lady has added five new substances to the Schedule. There are other substances which are dangerous and which lead often to young children being "hooked". I hope that she will add substances from time to time. I should like

to see amphetamines brought into the Schedule and thereby brought under control.

Miss Bacon: If I may speak again, by leave of the House.
I take it that I would be out of order in replying to many of the points raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), but in any case, we had an interesting debate in the House on Wednesday night on the Adjournment, on the whole of the drugs problem, when I dealt particularly with safety in warehouses. Perhaps he would read in HANSARD what I said then.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I did read the right hon. Lady's remarks. I agree that security must be tightened up, but I am more concerned with bringing the warehouses under statutory control, which could be done under this Act.

Miss Bacon: I realise that. To answer the question about bringing amphetamines within the Schedule, this is an addition to the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1964, and that main Act deals with amphetamines. Amphetamines are, therefore, already in the Schedule. What we are doing this morning is to add LSD to amphetamines, so that we are now putting LSD on the same footing as amphetamines, which are controlled in the way we propose to control LSD.
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his remarks und assure him that the question of the international control of LSD25 will be considered at a meeting of a special committee of the United Nations Narcotics Commission next week. The United Kingdom will be represented at that meeting, at which this and other matters will be discussed. I assure the House that we are anxious to control drugs as much as possible. If we find that any other drug is being used in the way that LSD is being used, we will immediately take the same kind of action as we are now taking over LSD.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 Modification Order, 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL INJURIES (COLLIERY WORKERS)

11.42 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Harold Davies): I beg to move,
That the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment Order 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th July, be approved.
This Order amends the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Order, 1963, made under the powers now contained in Sections 46 and 47 of the National Insurance Act, 1965 as applied by Section 82 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1965.
These provisions enable the Minister to approve a supplementary scheme asked for by any body of insured persons and their employers and also give certain powers relating to the administration of an approved scheme and the supervision of the funds. Section 47(1) of the National Insurance Act, 1965 empowers the Minister to vary or amend an approved scheme, if requested to do so by those concerned. These powers are to be exercised by orders which, under Section 107(1) of that Act, are subject to affirmative resolutions in both Houses of Parliament.
The Special Orders Committee of the House of Lords requested in 1961 that the original 1948 Order and its amending orders should be consolidated. This was done in 1963 and there has since been only one other amending order, which I had the pleasure of bringing before the House on 15th March, 1965.
The Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme is the only one approved under the Sections to which I have referred. It was made in 1948 and provides supplementary benefits for colliery workers receiving benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act in respect of colliery accidents or diseases. It is a contributory scheme and the cost of the benefits and the administration is borne by a fund formed by contributions from the National Coal Board and the colliery workers. At present the Board's contribution is 6¼d. a ton of the saleable output of deep-mined coal and the worker's contribution

is 6¼d. a week, with lower rates for women and juveniles.
The general administration of the Scheme rests with the National Committee, consisting of five employers' representatives and five workers' representatives. Four of the five employers' representatives are appointed by the National Coal Board and one by the Federation of Small Mines of Great Britain. Four of the five workers' representatives are appointed by the National Union of Mineworkers and one by the Minister to represent workers who are not members of the N.U.M. At present this fifth member is a nominee of the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shot-firers.
The Scheme pays benefits in supplementation of injury benefit, disablement benefit, industrial widow's pension and the allowance to a woman having care of a child of a colliery worker who died as a result of a colliery accident or disease. The supplements to injury and disablement benefit are expressed as a proportion of those benefits—for example, one-third of injury benefit, plus 2s. 6d. rounded up or down to the nearest 6d. The supplement to the present rate of injury benefit and 100 per cent. disablement pension of 135s. is, therefore, 47s. 6d. The supplements to widows' pensions and to the allowance for women having care of a child are expressed as figures in the Order and are at present 47s. 6d. a week for a widow with a child, or aged 40 or over, and for a woman having care of a child, and 14s. for a childless widow under 40.
The supplementary benefits are paid by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance with the related industrial injuries benefits with certain exceptions, where, for example, the beneficiary is working for the National Coal Board and the benefit can be paid with his earnings by the Board.
The National Committee has agreed upon, and requested, the Minister to make all the amendments in the Order. Consequently there is no dissension, it being an agreed arrangement. The Government Actuary has approved the revised contributions. With the exception of Article 5 of the Order—which brings about a minor procedural change—the amendments result from the introduction


by the National Insurance Act, 1966, of an earnings-related supplement which will be payable with injury benefit and will, by the proposed amendments, to a large extent replace colliery workers' supplement to injury benefit.
The colliery workers supplement will be paid only where and in so far as the earnings-related supplement falls short of the normal colliery workers' supplement rate of £2 7s. 6d. a week, subject to an income limit on total benefits. The limit operates at present after the first three weeks and restricts the amount of the colliery workers' supplementary injury or disablement benefit to the difference between "pre-accident earnings" and "post-accident earnings", if any, plus certain benefits.
This limit will be brought forward to the dates when the earnings-related supplement comes into payment; that is, normally at the end of two weeks, but in some cases earlier than that. Administration is simplified by altering the period to which the "pre-accident earnings" relate to coincide normally with the relevant tax year. Colliery workers' supplement will, however, be unaffected by any income limit and will continue to be paid in full when an earnings-related supplement is payable with industrial death benefit for widows during the first six months after bereavement.
There will be a saving in payment of benefit from the Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme of approximately £1·1 million in 1967 and it is proposed that the contributions paid by employers and workers should be correspondingly reduced. As this Scheme is agreed by the National Committee and by the Minister, I hope that it will commend itself to the House.

11.50 a.m.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: Before turning to the substance of the Order Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that this is, in a sense, a rather historic moment because this is the last appearance at the Dispatch Box of the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. I am sure that we should like to take our official leave of both of them and to thank them and, indeed, their predecessors, for what they have done in a remarkable Ministiy and that we will be able to welcome

the same distinguished Members in their new titles which, in the short space of time that the Government have to run, we hope they will continue to enjoy.
As the hon. Gentleman said in his clear explanation, there is no dispute about the Order, which we certainly hope to see come into effect. I think, however, that we should highlight the fact that this is a very remarkable Scheme that we are amending. For example, no part of the cost of it falls on any moneys which are voted by this House. To that extent, it must be something remarkable and I do not think that we should allow however modest or right an Amendment to the Scheme to go by without some reference to that fact. I understand that the Amendment is necessary because of the new arrangements which both sides of the industry support for the earnings-related benefits.
I have two small points to raise. They are not controversial in any way. The first concerns the actuarial review. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to refer to this and I understand that the Government Actuary has looked at the revised figures, has considered the scale of contributions by both sides and has satisfied himself and so advised the Government that the proposed rates of contribution by both sides are appropriate for the benefits which will now be paid under the new arrangements.
I also understand that there is to be a further actuarial review at the end of the year. I take it—and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able to confirm whether this is so—that if there should be at the end of the year, although it will still be early days, any signs that the calculations are in any way wrong, he will not hesitate to come to the House again so that we can get the matter into the right balance.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman will remember from previous discussions that this House is very watchful to ensure that those affected by any of these schemes have the opportunity of understanding very clearly what is afoot. I have in mind the new Article 14A, which is introduced by Article 6 of this Order, because this touches the very special case of those with pneumoconiosis.
The hon. Gentleman will recall how anxious we in this House have been to


ensure that those affected by this dreadful disease—although small in number when taking the country as a whole, but nevertheless an important group—should benefit by the changes now proposed in the new Article 14A. As I understand it, in the case of pneumoconiosis, injury benefit is not paid. I think that that follows from the Explanatory Memorandum which, the Ministry has helpfully issued. Disablement benefit is paid, attracting sickness benefit with earnings-related supplement. That is why we have to have the new provision of Article 14A.
It is all very well for us to go carefully through these matters in this House. The hon. Member is ably advised and even hon. Members on this side may have the training as well as the ability to understand these words. But we are dealing here with people who do not have pretentions to that advice or to that training and we must make these provisions as simple as we can. If the hon. Gentleman could explain a little more how the Scheme works with pneumoconiosis it would be a little more helpful, but I shall understand if he feels that he should take more time to consider his reply. I hope that the facts will be made available in simple form and in laymen's language so that the Scheme is intelligible to them. If he could give that simple assurance, we should be happy to see the Order go through.

11.55 a.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) for his kind remarks about the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and I should like to say that his tribute is due to Administrations from both sides of the House, for much of the work done by the Ministry transcends political issues because we all want the best social security and pensions that we can get. I am grateful for the courteous tribute he paid to my right hon. Friend the Minister, to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and to myself.
I will try now and answer concisely and constructively the questions he put. I am grateful to him for pointing out that no part of the cost of the moneys falls upon the Exchequer as such but comes from both sides of the industry—the National Coal Board and the miners.
The hon. Gentleman asked that this scheme should be made clear. I assure him that the National Union of Mine-workers and the National Coal Board do their utmost to see that the working of the Scheme is put in crystal clear language so that it can be understood in the mining and industrial areas. He will also know of the high I.Q. of people in the mining industry. It does not take long for those working in the industry to master the details of such schemes.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the actuarial review and I confirm that in December another actuarial review is to take place. I would not like to commit myself in detail without deeper thought, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that if there is need to come back to the House and explain anything of importance that the House should know we will not on any account withhold that information from the House.
There is also the question of the interpretation of Article 6 which introduces the new Article 14A. It deals at paragraph (b) with the replacement of the colliery workers' supplement by earnings-related supplement in cases of pneumoconiosis. As the hon. Gentleman said, in this case no injury benefit is paid but disablement benefit is paid instead from the date of the development of the disease and sickness benefit with earnings-related supplement—and I think that this is the point he wanted on record—can be paid in addition to the disablement benefit.
Provision has therefore been made for reducing the colliery workers' supplement by the amount of any earnings-related supplement paid with the sickness benefit in respect of the incapacity due to pneumoconiosis during the period when injury benefit would otherwise be payable—that is, the 26 weeks following the date of development of the disease.
I have tried to answer the hon. Gentleman's question but if, on reading HANSARD, he is not quite satisfied or wants some clarification, it will be my pleasure to write or talk to him and get it clear.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries), (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment Order, 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE (MARINERS)

12.0 noon.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Norman Pentland): I beg to move,
That the National Insurance (Mariners) Amendment Regulations 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th July, be approved.
The purpose of the Regulations is to amend the National Insurance (Mariners) Regulations to take account of the change in the National Insurance Scheme made by the National Insurance Act, 1966. This introduced earnings-related supplements for unemployment and sickness benefit and widow's allowance, and provided for the increased graduated contributions needed to pay for these supplements. Regulations of this kind are needed, because it is not possible to apply the National Insurance Scheme to seafarers without some modifications. Accordingly, the National Insurance Acts give the Minister wide powers to make special provisions for them.
I now turn to the individual Regulations. Regulation 1 is formal. Regulation 2 deals with seafarers attending training courses. A provision in the existing Regulations enables those who undertake such courses, which are to enable them to obtain higher qualifications, to receive unemployment benefit even though they do not satisfy the usual conditions as to unemployment and availability for work.
This concession, which does not apply to the training of workers in any other industry, has become increasingly anomalous in the National Insurance Scheme, particularly as many of the men concerned have their pay made up, and the Regulation provides that the concession shall not be extended to provide the new earnings-related supplement to unemployment benefit. These Regulations do not affect the position on flat-rate benefit, but my right hon. Friend the Minister is considering, in consultation with both sides of the industry, what the future position on flat-rate benefit should be.
The remaining Regulations deal with graduated contributions. Special rules are

necessary on these for seafarers, because their pay arrangements vary from those of workers on shore, normally being related to the voyages they undertake. This being so, their Income Tax and graduated contributions are assessed at the end of a voyage on average earnings throughout that voyage. Although the rules of assessment differ from those applicable to insured persons in general, the range of earnings on which contributions are paid and the percentage payable as contributions are the same.
Regulation 3 and Schedules 1 and 2 prescribe new graduated contributions payable, Schedule 1 containing the rates for employments which are not contracted out of the graduated pension scheme, and Schedule 2 containing the rates for employments which are contracted out. The tables are identical to those set out for ordinary contributors in the National Insurance (Assessment of Graduated Contributions) Regulations, as amended.
The provision in paragraph (4) of Regulation No. 3, which introduces a new paragraph (7) into the main Regulation No. 18, is to permit an employer to calculate the graduated contributions payable on an exact percentage basis to the nearest penny, if he finds that this is preferable to using the tables which set out contributions for bands of earnings. This alternative method is already available for employers generally under Regulation No. 3(3) of the National Insurance (Assessment of Graduated Contributions) Regulations, and its extension to mariners' contributions will assist shipping companies with computerised payroll systems.
Regulation No. 4 and Schedule 3 deal with the situation where overtime for the last days of a voyage is paid later than the main payment of wages for the voyage, thus involving a separate and late assessment of contributions. The existing rule that the shipowners and seafarers each pay 10d. in the £, about 4½ per cent., of this balance of wages due when it is paid, is now replaced by a new rule fixing a charge of 11d. in the £, about 4¾ per cent., for seamen not contracted out, and 1d. in the £, about ½ per cent., for those contracted out. This is in line with the new levels of graduated contributions under the 1966 Act.
Regulation No. 5 deals with the annual maximum of graduated contributions. The existing mariners' Regulations, like


the Regulations applying to other contributors, provide that a person with more than one employment can apply for a refund if he pays more than a prescribed amount of graduated contributions. The prescribed amount is the maximum normally payable in one employment for a whole year. This Regulation fixes the new amounts consequential on the 1966 Act.
The Regulations preserve the existing arrangement that a refund can arise only if graduated contributions are 10s. or more above this prescribed limit; this prevents refunds of very small amounts which would be disproportionately costly in administrative terms. But amounts which are not refunded count for graduated pension.
Regulation No. 6 makes transitional provision for cases where a voyage starts before 5th October, 1966, which is the appointed day for the new graduated contributions, and continues after the 5th October, 1966. Paragraph (a) provides that the old contribution rates shall apply to the whole voyage if it ends before 5th January, 1967, that is, within three months of the date that the new contributions become payable in general. This is to prevent the ship's master from having to calculate graduated contributions at two rates for such voyages.
Paragraph (b) ensures that where a voyage starting before 5th October lasts beyond 5th January, only the period after 5th October will attract the new rate of contributions. This is on the same basis as in 1961, when graduated contributions were first payable, and in 1963, when the scales were extended. My right hon. Friend has consulted the National Maritime Board, which represents both sides of the shipping industry, and the Board expressed its agreement with the changes proposed in these Regulations.

12.8 p.m.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: The House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. We clearly understand that special arrangements are necessary, consequent upon the new arrangements of the 1966 Act, for those in employment of this kind. One remembers recent events when a very graphic description was given of the particular

problems of employment in this industry, which illustrate the difficulty when a very large percentage of people are away at any one time from their base. Therefore, there is no criticism about the Regulations in so far as they refer to mariners and particularly in so far as they deal with the transitional arrangements consequent upon the introduction of the new arrangements in October.
I have only one comment to make, which is, admittedly, a slight criticism. It is based on Regulation No. 2, the modification of the arrangements for the payment of unemployment benefit for a mariner undergoing an approved course of training. Until these Regulations came before the House I had not properly appreciated that in this industry it was possible to draw unemployment benefit while undergoing an approved course of training. I do not know whether there are any other examples of this kind. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is plainly an anachronism, and even more of an anachronism when, as here, and as with so many other industries, the necessary pay is made up. For this reason I do not quite follow why the Minister has not introduced these Regulations on the basis of putting the thing right completely.
Unless I have got my facts wrong—but I think I followed the hon. Gentleman in what was necessarily an elaborate explanation—the mariner remains entitled to his flat-rate unemployment benefit, but he gets no title to the earnings-related supplement.

Mr. Pentland: Mr. Pentland indicated assent.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am glad that I have understood the position correctly. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that his right hon. Friend was looking further into this, and the inference was that the right hon. Lady was looking critically at it. By critical I mean with a view to getting rid of the anomaly entirely. The right hon. Lady has not permitted the anomaly to extend into the earnings-related aspect of the matter. She has yet to act with regard to flat-rate benefits.
I think that it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could say why his right hon. Friend has not felt it possible in these Regulations to do the complete job. Plainly the right hon. Lady will have to


come back to the House with new Regulations, though of course this is a perfectly simple matter. I do not quite follow why it was not possible to take one bite at the cherry, instead of two.
I appreciate that recent events in the maritime world have not made consultation any easier, and that there have been other matters which have engaged the attention of the shipping industry, and which it would not be in order for me to go into now. It may be that that is the root cause of the right hon. Lady's difficulties, and if so we shall understand that, but I think that it would be helpful to know, because at first blush it seems that it would have been a much tidier operation to get rid of the whole thing at one time, particularly as the Minister has decided, as I think rightly, that it is an anomaly which does not fit in with our industrial thinking in the 'sixties and 'seventies. With that one reservation I hope, as before, that the House will be disposed to agree to this proposal.

12.13 p.m.

Mr. Pentland: Perhaps I might briefly reply to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I first thank him for his usual courtesy, and for the very helpful attitude which he always adopts to matters of this kind.
If the hon. Gentleman looks at paragraph 5 of the Explanatory Memorandum, he will see that the flat-rate benefit is not being withdrawn at the moment, because the seamen's strike made it impossible to complete the negotiations with the industry in time. I therefore have to make it clear that further Regulations will be necessary to secure the cessation of flat-rate unemployment benefit.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that it would have been better not to have made any special provision about earnings-related supplement in these Regulations.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am sorry, but I obviously did not make myself clear. What I had in mind was that it might have been wiser to have delayed the introduction of these Regulations in order to do the two jobs at one time.

Mr. Pentland: It would have been inappropriate to allow the new earnings-related supplement to become payable for a limited period. That is what it would have meant in this case. We would have

been extending the range of the present anomaly, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the earnings-related supplement will be payable as from 6th October next, and the present Regulations afford the only opportunity which the Government have—and indeed this is the only obvious occasion—to prevent the payment of supplements to mariners on training courses.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the National Insurance (Mariners) Amendment Regulations, 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — PETROL COMPANIES (SOLUS ARRANGEMENTS)

12.15 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I beg to move,
That the Solus Petrol Order 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 894), dated 19th July 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th July, be approved.
I wish to ask the House to approve this Order and the Solus Petrol (Amendment) Order, both of which are in my right hon. Friend's name.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman must formally ask the House to approve only the first. If he wants to discuss the other Order with it, he may do so if the Opposition have no objection.

Mr. Michael Alison: We have no objection.

Mr. Darling: That is convenient, Mr. Speaker, because I was going on to say that the second Order corrects a slight error in the first one. On page 5 of the first Order there are four words which ought not to appear.—"after the relevant date". The purpose of the second Order is to remove those words.
The Order is being made with some reluctance, because its purpose is to close a gap in a series of voluntary arrangements which have been made with the petrol companies to carry out the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission which inquired into the Solus sites agreement which the petrol companies have with retailers of petrol, with garages, and so on.
The Commission spent some considerable time examining these arrangements, and came to the conclusion that they were restrictive, that they were in a sense contrary to the public interest, and brought forward eight recommendations which it urged the Board of Trade to bring into operation. The Commission's Report has been available for some time. I am sure that all hon. Members have read it with a great deal of interest, and therefore I need not go through the recommendations in detail.
When the Commission's Report was published, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said that he accepted in principle the Commission's recommendations, and then the Board of Trade had discussions with the petrol companies to see whether the Commission's recommendations could be put into operation through voluntary agreements, rather than that the Board of Trade should come along and ask for Orders to impose the recommendations on the petrol companies.
After considerable discussion, in the course of which one alteration was made in the recommendations, the petrol companies agreed that the recommendations should be implemented by voluntary agreement. There was one exception to this agreement. The Total company disagreed, and this has created difficulty.
Total is small compared with the giants in this business, and is a relative newcomer to selling petrol, lubricating oils, and so on, in this country. Total's view is that at least one of the recommendations, which appears both in the Commission's Report, with some alterations, and in the voluntary agreement, would harm the possible development of its trade in this country. As the voluntary agreement depends on all the petrol companies working together, on them accepting the agreement together, it is impossible to give a dispensation to Total in connection with the voluntary agreement.
The other petrol companies have made it quite clear that the full agreement must be carired out by all the petrol companies, otherwise individual petrol companies will themselves contract out of the voluntary agreement.
As the voluntary agreements represent a substantial victory in this kind

of arrangement, naturally we do not want the voluntary agreements to be upset. Therefore, as far as it is possible to do so, we are compelled to put the voluntary agreements into an Order which wil apply to Total.
There are two alternatives. We could either adopt the course of bringing in an Order which in legalistic language carries out the voluntary agreement and applies to one company only, or we could say that the Order which is now before the House should apply to all the petrol companies. In view of the fact that we have had this agreement with the petrol companies—in a voluntary agreement of this type we can give the companies a little latitude as compared with what is bound to be rather tightly drawn in a legalistic order—we think that it would be quite unfair to impose this Order on the petrol companies which have agreed to the voluntary arrangements.
We have taken the latter course, and I think that we are perfectly right and justified in so doing.
I do not want to spell out the recommendations of the Commission in detail or explain how they are carried over into the voluntary agreements. The agreement deals with the time limit on Solus agreements for the sale of petrol, with arrangements that can be made and will be made for the repayment of loans which are provided for under Solus agreements by the petrol companies to the retailers. It deals with hire-purchase arrangements that are made for the purchase of equipment and how the hire-purchase agreements can be ended. It deals with the problem of ending the restriction that certain companies have imposed in the past on the sale of other companies' lubricants. It deals with Solus agreements that in the past have applied to such things as the sale of tyres and batteries in a restrictive way. It deals with loans to cover building for the reconstruction and extension of garages and petrol station sites. It deals with the restriction of the number of company-owned stations which can be operated by any company and with the time limit which can be imposed on the letting of company stations.
All those matters recommended by the Commission are carried over into the agreements. There is one difference, and this is where Total complains about the


arrangements which are being made. The Commission recommended that no petrol supplier whose deliveries of petrol in any year to company-owned stations exceeded 15 per cent. of his total deliveries to petrol stations in that year should build or acquire any further stations or acquire any such interest in any further stations while such excess continued, and it went on to provide that this prohibition should not apply in any year in which the total deliveries by the supplier were less than 10 million gallons.
In discussions with the petrol companies, we decided that the 10 million gallon limit was too low, and that has been increased. In spite of that, Total argues that under the restrictions in this section carried over from the Commission's recommendations into the agreement, it will not be allowed to open any more company stations, and, because it is a newcomer, it argues that it can only develop through its company-owned stations for some considerable time, because it will be some time before it comes up to the level of gallonage which is now provided for in the voluntary agreements.
Therefore, Total will not accept the voluntary agreements, and, in order that they can be properly carried out under the terms and conditions which we discussed with the petrol companies and which they have accepted, we are compelled to bring forward this Order which applies only to the Total Company. The effect of it means that, for all the other petrol suppliers, the voluntary agreements will be carried out and, in the case of Total, by this Order we impose, as it were, voluntary agreements upon the company.

12.25 p.m.

Mr. Michael Alison: Perhaps I might start by reassuring the Minister of State that we welcome at least the Amendment which he has tabled this morning in that it removes an element of retrospective legislation which was implied in the original Order.
As for the Order proper, we must admit to feeling something of the same reluctance in accepting it, although we would not seek to block it, that the Minister himself suggested. It raises some curious and unusual precedents. It is an Order against one specific company to bring it into line with a whole group of

companies whose commitments, as the President of the Board of Trade himself has said, are limited merely to undertakings.
I notice from his Written Answer of 19th July, with which the Minister of State will be familiar, that we have introduced a new concept of something parallel to a statutory obligation, which is the concept of the undertaking. These undertakings which will come into effect on 6th August, 1966, are the parallel commitments to the obligations being placed upon Total in this Order.
We want to know exactly what the binding commitments of an undertaking really are. It seems to us to raise some difficulties. I know that the President of the Board of Trade has said that he will look at the position in 18 months to see how it has gone. If there is a breach of an undertaking, do those who are in breach then become the subject of a new Order? Has that been thought out? If they become the subject of a new Order, how do they stand in relation to paragraph 2(b) of the existing Solus Petrol Order, 1966, which specified a period of five years commencing with the date of the operation of that Order? After 18 months, if a firm is in breach of its undertaking, the five-year period which will then become appropriate to it under a new Order thereby made necessary would presumably be an Order dating from whatever it may be—August, 1967—and therefore they have had a clear 12 months advantage because their five-year conditions will outlast the Total commitments by 12 months or possibly more.
That is a problem which is likely to arise if there is a breach of the so-called undertakings. It may be possible to bring them in under the existing Order by adding a new schedule, but that would be undesirable, because it would be retrospective in itself. Perhaps the Minister could indicate to us what action the Government propose if there is a breach of these undertakings? With regard to breaches, can he indicate to us what the penalties involved are, because presumably there are penalties under the Order for a breach. It may arise in the parent Act, the Monopolies and Mergers Act. If there are penalties, it seems unfair that those who are merely committed by an undertaking are clearly not involved in any penalty at all.
On a point of clarification, what would be the position if petrol companies proposed, in any agreements that they made with their retail outlets, that although a particular solus tie should only run for five years, nevertheless there should be written into such an agreement an undertaking by the retailer to renew for successive periods of five years? Is this a way in which it is possible under the Order for the limitation to be dodged?
We should like reassurance that, if this Order were a Public Bill, it would not be a hybrid. It is probably not a hybrid under Section 3 of the Monopolies and Mergers Act, 1965, but if by any chance it were, it would be liable to delay in the House of Lords, and that would alter the date on which it would become operative.
I turn now to a a rather wider topic, on which the Minister himself commented in some detail. It is dealt with in Part V, page 5, under the heading
Limitation on supply through new Company stations.
As the right hon. Gentleman suggested, the original Monopolies Commission Report suggested 10 million gallons as the limiting figure at which the 15 per cent. rule should bite. That limitation has been raised by this Order to 50 million gallons. But the total supply of petrol through retail outlets in 1964 was, according to the Monopolies Commission Report, in excess of 2,600 million gallons per annum. The limit in the Order of 50 million gallons represents about 2 per cent. of the present sale of petrol through retail outlets. It seems a little hard on the innovators seeking to break in, possibly introducing an element of competition, and, perhaps, in that way bringing down the price to the consumer, that his limit should be such a small fraction of the total sales.
This view is reinforced by what Professor Barna says in a dissenting opinion in the Monopolies Commission Report. He says that the main body of existing suppliers of petrol already have between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. of retail outlet through their own stations. We therefore have a situation in which the existing giants can get away, as it were, with having between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. of their sales through their own retail outlets, while anybody coming

in gets only 15 per cent. That seems unfair.
To supply petrol to one's own stations is not necessarily undesirable, and there is no doubt that, as Professor Barna said, the important element of efficiency in petrol distribution is the throughput of individual petrol stations. In the United States, the throughput of petrol from individual retail outlets is some 2½ times as high as that in Britain. It is evident that there should be some encouragement to raise the throughput of petrol at individual retail stations. I suspect that once this Order is operative, and the undertakings, if observed, applied to the whole range of suppliers, there will be an incentive for them to concentrate a lot of effort on raising throughput in their own stations.
The paradox is that if one succeeds in raising throughput in one's own stations, one can normally increase the percentage of sales without increasing the number of stations. Yet it is precisely this higher percentage the Commission wished to prevent. Fortunately it is quite possible to double the throughput in one's own stations and perhaps thus to double the percentage sold in company stations without being in breach of the Order. All that one is not allowed to do is to increase sales by acquiring new stations.
There seems to be an undesirable economic principle here, because the effect of the Order will be to discourage petrol companies from acquiring new retail outlets and certainly not to encourage them to increase the throughput in those they already have. I have raised a number of diverse points on this Order, and I would be glad if the Minister would comment on some of them.

12.35 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I have no interest in Total, but I have a good deal of sympathy for that company. First, it is very invidious to be the only named firm in the Order. Secondly, it is particularly invidious if the company is based in France rather than in England. I hope that that consideration was borne very much in mind when the Board of Trade decided to take this action, because it would be very unfortunate if it got about that what was one treatment for British-based companies was, somehow, not the same


for companies based abroad. There is an element in which the treatment is not the same, and it has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison).
My hon. Friend pointed out that, according to Professor Barna's dissenting opinion in page 180 of the Report, the existing giants, most of which are British based already, have between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. going through company stations which they own or rent, but that the newcomer, the innovator, is to be allowed only 15 per cent. That requires a little more justification than we have had from the Minister because, on the face of it, it is a discrimination against the newcomer.
It is true that this is, in some measure, due to the passage of time. The Commission, no doubt for good reasons, took a long time to examine these affairs, and by the time the Report was printed the existing companies had already increased the percentage they put through company stations. Nevertheless, that is a good enough reason for this apparent consideration against the newcomer—15 per cent. for him and 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. for the existing, established—one might almost say entrenched—companies.
While I am on the point of entrenchment, I should like to know what has happened to the Commission's recommendation relating to motorways. The Commission recommended that in view of the fact that Solus agreements were particularly tight—indeed, noxious—in the case of the motorway franchise, the Commission said in page 157 of the Report:
We think that the Ministry should so extend the steps they already take … as to ensure that any lower-priced brands which are sold on a substantial scale elsewhere shall be fairly represented on the motorways and shall be sold at no higher retail price there than elsewhere.
In other words, in the view of the Commission this extremely valuable and profitable franchise of selling petrol on the motorways ought to be widened to the more popular brands which provide admirable competition for the entrenched companies. In my experience of driving up and down motorways I do not see much sign of that, and I wondered what had happened to that recommendation; because there, again, I am sure the Board

of Trade does not wish to be thought, and indeed it is not thought, to favour the entrenched interests. Therefore, it behoves the Board of Trade to stimulate the Ministry of Transport to carry out this recommendation of the Monopolies Commission, because the purposes of the Monopolies Commission, that of greater competition, the lowering of prices and increased efficiency are those which all parties have very dearly at heart.

12.41 p.m.

Mr. Darling: Quite a number of very pertinent questions have been raised by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), as one would expect from him. I will try to answer them, and also those questions put to me by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). On the question of breach of the undertakings, the sanction to deal with them would be the extension of this Order, as the hon. Member has suggested; but I do not believe there will be any breaches. I am sure that the undertakings that have been given by the petrol companies will be carried out. If there are breaches I am sure they will be accidental, and in view of the very friendly way in which all this has been done the arrangement that my right hon. Friend has made to look at the undertakings again in a year or eighteen months' time will enable us to see whether this innovation—and the hon. Member is quite right, it is an innovation—is the right way of doing things.
If anything arises out of the operation of the undertakings which suggests that we have not done this in the right way, we will, of course, make the necessary alteration. To that extent the undertakings are elastic, but I believe the House would agree that if one can get voluntary agreements on the basis of the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission one should try to do so. I myself would feel that that is a better way of doing things than having to come to the House to get Orders of this description imposed on companies. I hope the innovation will succeed, but, of course, if there are deliberate breaches of the Order then, as the hon. Member has said, and as I repeat, the sanction to ensure that the undertakings are carried out would be the extension of the Order to those companies who fail. As to the penalties for


breaching the Order, there are no criminal penalties laid down in the Monopolies legislation for this kind of offence, and we should have to seek injunctions to prevent an offence being committed.
The hon. Member raised the question of whether this is a hybrid Order. I understand that under our procedure it is not, but that under the procedure in another place it is. We have therefore to consider what might happen if there are any Petitions against the Order. I think we had better leave it there at the moment and see what happens; but as far as the procedure in another place is concerned, by their rules this is a hybrid. The 2 per cent. element to which the hon. Member referred is one which, as I am sure he will understand, caused us quite a lot of—I will not say trouble—but quite a lot of discussion as to whether the right figure had been chosen in view of this recommendation. Even though there was a dissenting voice from the Monopolies Commission, we had to decide what was the proper figure to work to.
Obviously, by the hon. Member's arguments 10 million gallons would be far too low, and I feel that having had the proposition from the Monopolies Commission recommending 10 million gallons any figure we might go to that was in the range of 2, 3, 4 or 5 per cent. of the total petrol sales of the country would give rise to the kind of argument put forward by hon. Members. After much discussion we felt that 50 million gallons was just about the right figure, one which would not prevent newcomers coming into the business but would allow for newcomers. Total may complain about it on the grounds that their present rate of sales are unlikely to reach 50 million gallons for a little while; but it would not in our view be hard on the newcomers to operate on this 2 per cent. of the total sales of petrol in the country as the limit for the purpose of the Monopolies Commission's recommendation. We may be wrong. This is another matter which we might well look at in the course of the review of the undertaking.
I was much intrigued by the hon. Member's arguments about the economics of company-owned stations. He is perfectly correct. If the company doubled its sales in company-owned stations, then

of course it doubles its sales within the terms of the undertakings in spite of the fact that the purpose here—and this is the main recommenation of the Monopolies Commission—is to cut down the sales of petrol through company-owned stations. That is another matter at which we must look. Having had this recommendation from the Monopolies Commission—and as the hon. Member knows they stress their criticism of growing sales to company-owned stations—whether the Monopolies Commission in their recommendations have the economics right and whether we have the economics right in accepting the recommendation, I do not know; but I would agree with Professor Barna to the extent that I believe we should look at the situation again during the review of the undertakings.
I am sure the House would not wish me to go into a great deal of detail about the points that have been raised. If I have failed to answer any of the questions raised by the hon. Member, I will write to him about them and we can have a discussion later. With regard to the question raised by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen, we, too, were rather worried about the fact that we were applying this Order to a non-British company, although it is a company registered in this country—Total (Great Britain). We know that it is the British branch of a French company and we want to make clear that there is no invidious distinction here. Of course, it applies also to Esso and Mobil who, although registered in this country and being very much British companies are, so to speak, branches of United States concerns. Total have their views and, as the hon. Member for Barkston Ash has said, there is some substance in their arguments. But having got the Undertakings from all the other companies it was impossible, despite the strength of Total's arguments, to leave them out of account; otherwise all the other undertakings would have been destroyed.
As the hon. Member himself has said, motorways are a matter related to the contracts made between the Ministry of Transport and the companies getting the franchise. I will certainly carry out the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman and draw the attention of the Ministry of Transport—although I am


sure it has already been done, anyway—to the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission and "stimulate" that Ministry—I believe that was the word used by the hon. Member—to do what is required in this respect. If there are any other points I have not touched upon I will reply to hon. Members in writing.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Solus Petrol Order 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 894), dated 19th July 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th July, be approved.

The Solus Petrol (Amendment) Order 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 931), dated 26th July, 1966, [copy laid before the House on 27th July] approved.—[Mr. Darling.]

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 15th July].

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Clause 4.—(POWERS OF COURT OF APPEAL ON DETERMINATION OF CRIMINAL APPEALS.)

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 27, at the end to add:
(3) The criminal division of the Court of Appeal shall receive new evidence if that evidence is relevant and credible and if a reasonable explanation is given for the failure to place it before the jury".

Question again proposed, That those words be there added.

12.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): When the debate adjourned, we were discussing this Amendment, which had been moved by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck). The hon. Gentleman has told me that he has been detained and is, unfortunately, not able to be present now. At that stage, I said that we were unwilling to accept the Amendment. The Committee will be glad to learn that, on reflection, we have decided that the content of the Amendment would be extremely valuable, for the reasons which the hon. Gentleman gave.
As Mr. Henry Brooke explained on the Third Reading of the Criminal Appeal Bill, 1964, the practice of the Court of Criminal Appeal has already altered, and we think that there would be considerable merit in giving the alteration in practice statutory effect, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. However, his Amendment involves certain consequential changes. We would prefer to have rather different words, and my right hon. Friend has accordingly tabled a new Clause which we shall ask the House later to accept.
I understand that the hon. Member for Colchester would agree to this new Clause replacing his Amendment. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) for the proposals which they made, which, we agree, will make a substantial improvement to the Bill.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), I thank the Under-Secretary of State for what he said about the usefulness of the Amendment, and I apologise on his behalf for his absence. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said my hon. Friend has been delayed.
On the last occasion, the Amendment was specifically declined by the Under-Secretary of State. Although we have in recent weeks had occasion many times to criticise members of the Government for completely changing their minds within a few days, this is one change of mind which is wholly welcome. Plainly, it is a change of mind, and it has occurred in about three weeks. That is slightly longer than the period taken for some of the changes of mind we have had from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which seems to show that a little longer time to consider matters put forward from this side works in the end to the advantage of the Measure being discussed.
The proposal in the Amendment, now to be embodied in a Government new Clause, will improve the powers of the new Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal. Although the Criminal Appeal Act permitted the Court of Criminal Appeal to allow fresh evidence, the court itself had laid down various conditions which meant that one could submit fresh evidence only when one could show that it was not available at the time of trial. The Donovan Committee specifically stated in paragraph 133 of its Report that it felt that that interpretation had become too narrow and that the court should not be required to reject fresh evidence if reasonable explanation could be given of the failure to call it at the time of trial.
There are various reasons which may lead to evidence not being called at the trial. People who are not represented may not realise that a piece of evidence is relevant; or it may be due to a bad decision by counsel or solicitors which is later regretted when it becomes apparent that such evidence may well have had a bearing on the case.

May I say, before asking leave to withdraw—

Mr. David Weitzman: Before the hon.

Gentleman asks leave to withdraw, may I be allowed to say something on this question?

The Chairman: It may assist the Committee if I say now that no one other than the hon. Member who moved an Amendment may ask leave to withdrawn it.

Mr. Carlisle: I am much obliged, Sir. Eric. I conclude by saying that it will be with great pleasure that this side of the Committee, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, will accept the Government's new Clause when it comes before us.

Mr. Weitzman: I am glad that the Home Secretary has now tabled new Clause No. 2, "Duty to admit fresh evidence", but I remind the Committee of what my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State said when dealing with this matter on the last occasion:
I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a failure to provide anything of this kind was, as he suggested on Second Reading, a failure to implement the Report of the Donovan Committee, because the Report is not clear …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1966; Vol. 731, c. 1994.]
As a member of the Donovan Committee, I wish to point out that the Committee did not, as my hon. and learned Friend suggested, regard this as a matter which, in my hon. and learned Friend's concluding words on 15th July, "should be altered in practice". In paragraph 136 of its Report, the Donovan Committee said:
We construe this as meaning that the Court will exercise its power to hear fresh evidence in such a way as to ensure that any miscarriage of justice will so far as possible be avoided or corrected. It will, we think, conduce to this end if the condition as to the evidence not having been available at the trial were discarded, and we recommend that additional evidence should be received, if it is relevant and credible, and if a reasonable explanation is given for the failure to place it before the jury.
Recommendation No. 12 was explicit:
The present practice of the Court in regard to the admission of fresh evidence in support of an appeal should be modified so as not to exclude altogether evidence which was available at the time of the trial. The Court should be willing to receive such evidence if it is relevant and credible, and if a reasonable explanation is given for the failure to place it before the jury at the trial.
Clearly, the Committee did not regard it as merely a question of practice.


The Committee recognised that the court adopted that procedure in practice, but it is important that something should be put upon the Statute Book which makes the position quite clear. In these circumstances, I very much welcome the decision now made by the Home Secretary.

Mr. Peter Archer: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend and the Home Secretary for their open-mindedness and intellectual honesty in agreeing to look at this matter again. It demonstrates, as perhaps nothing else could, their determination to conduct the affairs of their Department with great care.
I hope that the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) did not intend to imply—I thought I detected the suggestion at one stage—that this was a matter which had at one time divided this Committee. It certainly did not divide us across the Floor. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) and I were very much of one mind about it when the matter last came before us, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) clearly took the same view. We are intensely grateful to the Government for reviewing the matter.

1.0 p.m.

I should like to make one point, if I may, without appearing ungracious. Had I been invited to draft the Government's new Clause I should have preferred to leave the matter entirely to the discretion of the court rather than to introduce the requirement that the court should be satisfied that there was "a reasonable explanation" for the failure to adduce the evidence at first instance.

The Chairman: We are getting into the difficulty of discussing the Government's new Clause entitled "Duty to admit fresh evidence". In these circumstances, it might be convenient if we were to discuss the new Clause now and thereby avoid a debate on it later.

Mr. Carlisle: That would be most convenient to this side of the Committee.

Mr. Taverne: I agree.

Mr. Archer: I am grateful for that indication.
Had I been invited to draft the Government's proposal, I should have preferred to leave the matter to the discretion of the court, because it will be a matter for the court to decide whether it would constitute a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence at first instance that an accused person who was unrepresented had failed to appreciate the importance of the evidence or, if he were represented, that his counsel had been guilty perhaps of an error of judgment which, on reflection, he regretted.
Fortunately, this is not a matter on which we need to take a particularly firm stand. One hopes that the court, with its customary sympathy for honest human failings, will accept as "a reasonable explanation" matters of this kind. In those circumstances, I shall in due course ask for the leave of the Committee to withdraw the new Clause in my name.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I should like to say a few words in support of my hon Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) and emphasise the point which he made that the division on the last occasion was certainly across the Floor but probably more between hon. Members opposite and the Government Front Bench. I am glad that we now have unanimity. I hope that the refreshing new willingness of my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State to look at Amendments proposed will be reflected in the way in which he considers subsequent Amendments.
I, too, am concerned about the addition of the words in paragraph (b) of the Government's new Clause, although I appreciate that, in any event, it would probably not be possible within its drafting to omit either those words or similar words. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will emphasise that the Committee, and I hope the House, would wish the term "a reasonable explanation" to be given a very liberal interpretation by the courts and certainly would not wish to place a person in the position of being prevented from calling fresh evidence in the Court of Appeal simply because he was wrongly advised, or felt that he was wrongly advised, by his counsel or solicitors in the court below. "A reasonable explanation" is a phrase which can


be construed in a strict or very liberal way. I echo the hope that the new Clause will be given a very liberal interpretation.

Mr. Taverne: I must bow to the view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) about the intentions of the Donovan Committee since he was a member of it. It was not clear to anyone who was not a member of the Committee from reading the Report whether it recommends that the present practice should be modified as a practice or by legislation. However, that is now an academic point.
The reasons for the new Clause have been sufficiently discussed. It provides that, subject to one condition, new evidence tendered to the court is to be received as admissible evidence if likely to be credible and if there is a reasonable explanation of the failure to produce it at the original trial.
Dealing with these provisions alone, it is clear that there must be something in the nature of an explanation of why the evidence was not called before. If this were not the case, an appellant could keep evidence back and produce it in the appeal court and have a second bite at the cherry. This would clearly be wrong. If provision is necessary, those words seem to me to be as reasonable as one could provide. It could be left to the court to interpret what "a reasonable explanation" was, but I echo the hope of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) that the courts will give it a liberal interpretation.
The condition subject to which new evidence can be received is that the court need not receive the evidence if, although it satisfies paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Clause, the court is satisfied that it would not afford any ground for allowing the appeal. This condition is necessary to protect the court from having to receive evidence when it is clear that the evidence, weighed against all the other evidence given at the trial, could not possibly call the conviction into question.
The new Clause is acceptable to the Lord Chief Justice who has confirmed that it reproduces the court's present approach. Consequential Amendments to

Clause 10 are required to apply the new Clause to Northern Ireland. Amendments are necessary to Schedule 1 to make similar provision for the Courts Martial Appeal Court. The fact that we have changed our mind shows how reasonable and ready the Government are on all occasions to make concessions if they are worthy concessions.

Amendment negatived.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I wish to say a few words about subsection (2) to which I tabled an Amendment which was not selected. I was delighted to hear the last remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I am sure that the Home Office is most reasonable and very willing to listen to suggestions for the improvement of the Bill.
On Second Reading, I, together with others, drew attention to the difficulty which arises under subsection (2) by the use of the words "greater severity" and the difficult problems which it might create. In replying to the debate, my hon. and learned Friend dealt with the matter in c. 1144 of HANSARD for 11th July and recognised the difficulties, but suggested that the word "severity" is a general guide which can indicate to the court the intention of the legislature without tying its hands in an undesirable way. I should be the last person to wish to tie the hands of the court in an undesirable way, even if I were capable of doing so.
However, the court, when faced with wording of this kind which will certainly be of much greater importance having regard to the passage of this Clause than it has been in relation to former legislation, would welcome some guidance as to what is meant by "greater severity". I had hoped that the Amendment which I tabled, which was generally to the effect that it would always be of greater severity to deprive a person of freedom for a longer period, or a potentially longer period, might commend itself as a principle to hon. Members.
I am not in a position to move that Amendment, and in any event the drafting of it may not have appealed to my hon. and learned Friend. Now we are to have a Report stage—at least I take it


that we are—and if in due course the new Clause which is proposed is passed, with other Amendments, this will give the opportunity to my hon. and learned Friend to consider whether there might be some way of ensuring that the court obtains guidance in this matter, which I believe to be very necessary. I hope that the sort of principle which I have suggested will commend itself to my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Taverne: I am afraid that there are difficulties about the line which the hon. and learned Member has suggested. We discussed this difficult question about how "severity" is to be interpreted when considering one of the Amendments in Committee last time. If one places a rigid limit it might be difficult for the Court of Appeal, in certain circumstances, to substitute a period of borstal training. This can be dealt with only by leaving it to the discretion of the court. It is practically impossible to draw up a table of sentences. One can only leave it on the general basis, which the courts have had to interpret in the past, both in the original 1907 Act and under the Criminal Appeal Act, 1964.

Question put and negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(COMPUTATION OF SENTENCE.)

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 32, to leave out from "subject" to the end of line 36.
This is a very short Amendment, the purpose of which is to widen still further the discretion given to the court in deciding whether to give a direction that the time spent in custody pending an appeal should not be reckoned as part of the sentence. As the Committee will know, Clause 5 as it stands changes the present position. At the moment time spent in prison awaiting appeal does not count towards the sentence unless the court makes an order that it should do so. As the Donovan Committee pointed out, this means in practice that, more or less automatically, people who make use of their right to appeal lose time,, normally up to a maximum of 63 days.
The recommendation of the Donovan Committee was welcomed by both sides

of the House and has been implemented in Clause 5 in order to change the burden of proof on this issue. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why the Government, having decided to change the burden of proof on this matter but still leaving it in the hands of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal in its discretion to direct that time shall not count where the appeal is one which is clearly without merit and might be described as being of a frivolous nature, have felt it right to go on to limit that discretion in any way? It may be that even where leave to appeal had been granted, the circumstances would nevertheless be such as to lead the Appeal Court to say that the appeal was without any merit and that the time spent in custody should not count towards the sentence.

1.15 p.m.

I fully accept that, in practice, in such a case it would be very seldom that the court would have made an order giving leave to appeal. Merely because a thing is unlikely to happen or because it only happens on rare occasions——

Mr. Weitzman: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that there are cases when the Court of Criminal Appeal has granted leave in order to increase sentence?

Mr. Carlisle: I appreciate what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, but that will now go because the power to increase sentence has been removed by Clause 4 of this Act. This Clause that we are discussing is saying that where leave has been granted by one judge of the court, on the basis that the ground of appeal is either against sentence or on a mixed question of fact and law, once that leave has been given, in no circumstances could the court ever count the time spent in custody as not being towards the sentence.
Although it is on rare occasions only that one can imagine the court wishing to use this power, the Parliamentary Secretary would surely agree that one can foresee a situation in which a man has quite deliberately induced the court to give him leave to appeal. When the appeal is heard it is plain that it is completely without merit of any kind. A man could arrange the granting of leave to appeal by putting in a statement or saying that there were various facts which he had not


had the opportunity to bring before the court previously and which appeared to raise a question that this was a matter which should be considered by the Court of Appeal.
If that statement is not correct and the Court of Appeal was to find that there was no merit at all in the application, the court had been deliberately misled. It is in circumstances such as this that we feel that, since one has given discretion to the criminal appeal division of the Court of Criminal Appeal it should be completely unfettered in any way. It would be better if the lines dealt with in this Amendment were left out of the Clause.

Mr. Weitzman: I would oppose this Amendment very strongly. The three cases proposed to be left out are in my view cases where it would be manifestly unjust to make a provision of this kind. When leave is granted in the first instance, a judge has heard the case and granted leave. Once a judge has listened to a case and granted leave, it surely cannot be said that it is vexatious or an abuse of the court or it is wrong that the man should go on with his appeal if it turns out afterwards that the appeal is dismissed. A judge has taken the view that leave to appeal ought to be given and in my submission it should be wrong that a man should be penalised because of this.
I referred to the case when leave is given in order to increase sentence. That is something of a farce and leave to appeal ought to be granted only when a judge has taken the view that there is an arguable case. If there is an arguable case the man ought not to be penalised. The second instance referred to in Clause 5 is where a certificate has been given in Section 3 of the 1907 Act.
A certificate is granted because the trial judge finds that it is a fit case for appeal on any question of fact or mixed law and fact. It surely cannot be suggested that where a learned judge has taken the view that a certificate ought to be granted because there is an arguable case, that a man should be penalised for going ahead with his appeal. This is particularly so in regard to the third instance, where one has reference made by the Home Secretary under Section 19(a) of the 1907 Act.

We all know that a reference will never be made by the Home Secretary unless there is a substantial point, some new evidence something new relating to the matter or something which in the view of the Home Secretary merits attention by the Court of Criminal Appeal. To suggest that in all three cases where there is clearly an arguable case to be put before the Court of Criminal Appeal the man should be penalised because he goes on is manifestly wrong and I hope that the Amendment will be rejected.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong when he says that I suggested that the man should be penalised. I accept everything the hon. and learned Gentleman says, but is he not saying that he finds it difficult to foresee the type of circumstances in which the court, having given leave, would then make its direction that time should not pass? That I accept. For the reasons he has adduced, I think that he will agree that this power would be used very rarely but surely that is different from saying that the court should never have the power, if it had been deliberately misled into granting leave.

Mr. Weitzman: The court having given leave to appeal, or the trial judge having given a certificate, or the Home Secretary having referred the matter, there should be no question of the Court of Criminal Appeal having the right to penalise the man for pursuing the appeal.

Mr. Taverne: Of the various Amendments which have been moved, this is one of the least meritorious. I was asked why it was proposed to limit the discretion of the Court of Appeal. A simple answer is that it was limited before. Section 38(2) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, which provides that time waiting for appeal shall be disregarded, has a proviso which specifically says:
the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not apply where leave to appeal is granted under the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, or any such certificate … has been given for the purposes of the appeal.
The whole purpose of the Donovan Committee was that appellants should be in a better position and the Amendment would leave them in a worse position. For those reasons, as well as the difficulties mentioned by my hon. and learned


Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). I hope that the Amendment will be rejected.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 38, at the end to insert:
and no such direction shall be given unless the court is unanimously of the opinion that the conduct of the appellant in bringing or in pursuing the appeal has been vexatious or an abuse of the process of the court".
As was made clear on Second Reading, there is considerable difficulty in the application of the court's power to order that a part of the sentence shall not be counted towards the total. The dilemma was clearly stated by my hon. and learned Friend in replying to the points which I made on Second Reading when he said:
I think that there are difficulties about not having it in the way in which it is now proposed. The fact remains that some sort of deterrent must undoubtedly be provided against being utterly swamped by a very large number of appeals. There are a number of cases where people appeal simply because they wish to have the extra visits. This has been found by certain studies which have been carried out. There are a large number of cases where people do not appeal now because of the possibility of this happening"—
that is to say, of their having to serve extra time.
There is, therefore, extremely good reason for providing some sort of deterrent, even though one recognises that it is rather unsatisfactory."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1966, Vol. 731, c. 1144–5.]
That sums up the position very clearly. There is the dilemma that there will always be a few people who, because of the extra privileges which they get during the period when waiting for their appeal to be heard, consisting largely of extra visits and, I think, more power to write and receive letters, will appeal for that and no other reason.
At the same time, there are many cases when people are deterred from appealing because of their fear that as a result of their doing so their sentence will be longer than it otherwise would be. That fear, of course, will still be a difficulty, even though the effect of Clause 5 is to reverse the former procedure and to ensure that it is only by direction of the

Court of Appeal that extra time has to be served.
As I pointed out on Second Reading—and in the intervening period this comment has been reinforced by action taken by the Court of Criminal Appeal in one or two cases which I have noticed—it is very often the case that people who on the face of it have a completely unmeritorious appeal are treated most leniently by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The other day, someone with a very long record of imprisonment, who had hardly spent a day of his adult life out of prison, appealed and the Court of Criminal Appeal took the view that, for the first time in his life, this man should have a real chance, and it therefore allowed him to go free, under supervision, from that time onwards.
It is that kind of case which I am most anxious not to deter from appealing. So long as we have any sort of sanction against the appeal which ought not to be made, so long will there be some people who as a result are deterred from appealing. I would sooner have no sanction at all, but I recognise the force of the argument that there must be some sort of sanction against the purely frivolous appeal which is induced simply by the desire for a certain amount of improvement, during a very limited time, in the living conditions of the appellant.
My view, therefore, is that the restrictions should be of the most minimal character, and it is in that sense that I have moved the Amendment. I suggest that the direction to increase a sentence should be given only, first, if the court unanimously thinks that it should be given, which is a very reasonable provision, and, secondly, if the conduct of the appellant in bringing or pursuing the appeal has been vexatious, or an abuse of the process of the court.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) referred to these words as summing up what he thought ought to be the principle upon which the court should act. There would be no harm and much merit in making it abundantly clear through Statute that it is upon this principle and none other that the court should act when dealing with appeals which it may think ought not to have been made, but which in other


circumstances, despite the apparent lack of merit, might well succeed.

1.30 p.m.

Mr. Archer: In supporting the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), I seek to repeat an appeal which I endeavoured to make at an earlier stage of consideration of this Bill. I follow the argument advanced by my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary on Second Reading that there are occasions when a prisoner seeks to obtain special privileges on the purely empty pretext of appealing, but this argument should be restricted as narrowly as possible.
The argument that where there is an acknowledged right, particularly where that right protects personal liberty, those who seek to exercise it should be penalised on the ground that it would be administratively inconvenient if too many seek to avail themselves of it is a principle which should be kept to the very narrowest limit. The practice of saluting a principle and then seeking to emasculate it on the ground that its progeny may be over-numerous can be carried to dangerous limits. It could be applied, and has in fact been applied, to every safeguard since Magna Carta, from Habeas Corpus and the right to petition the European Commission on Human Rights to the right in a police station to send for one's solicitor. I should hope that where it is to be invoked it should be invoked with the greatest possible reluctance.
The difficulty as I see it, when one is inviting the court to consider whether an appeal is without merit—I was a little perturbed when the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) earlier equated an appeal without merit with a vexatious appeal—when the court has to make this decision we are asking the very tribunal which has dismissed the appeal to go on to consider whether the appeal had merit. While clearly a court might arrive at different conclusions on the two issues there is always an element of predisposition where one has rejected an argument to come to the conclusion that no reasonable court could ever have entertained that argument. The two issues should be separated as widely as possible.
The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the two issues are separated

completely. What the court would now be invited to decide is, not whether an appeal was without merit, but whether it was proceeded with purely vexatiously. For these reasons I support the Amendment.

Mr. Taverne: I appreciate the spirit of this Amendment. As I said on a previous occasion, this is a very difficult point, but I am afraid that the Amendment is not acceptable.
I think it is recognised by a number of people, although my hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) did not recognise it, that one must keep some deterrent against a wholly unjustified appeal with no ground whatever. If one did not do so meritorious appeals would be bound to suffer. Even if we had more courts sitting hearing appeals there would be such a flood of appeals if nothing whatever were to be lost by an appeal that those who had merit would find their appeals indefinitely delayed.
However, to avoid the injustice of lengthening a sentence in the case of meritorious appeals and invite the court to address itself to whether an appeal had merit the recommendation of the Donovan Committee was that the court of criminal appeal must give reasons and direct its mind to the merits of an appeal. This is provided under Clause 5(2). In my view this provides an adequate safeguard that in practice it will be only appeals without merit in which this kind of Order will be made.
The effect of this Amendment, as I think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) admitted, would not be to restrict appeals without merit because the words:
vexatious or an abuse of the process of the court
probably mean that there can be no order if an appeal is brought for the purposes for which Parliament gave the right. If there were simply an intention to secure more visits that might be an abuse of the process of the court. If an appellant simply appealed because he wished to stay in London for a longer period that might be an abuse of the process of the court, but it would be something very difficult to prove. It is one thing to establish by means of sociological investigation as has been done in the past,


and another to prove before the criminal appeal division.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: If that is the argument, I do not see how one is better off under the position in the Bill as it stands. What reasons is the court to give? If it is unable to say that in its view the appeal was brought simply in order to bring extra privileges, what sort of reason would it give? Would it simply say, "In our view this appeal is without merit"? If that becomes the practice it will create the very evil which we are trying to avoid.

Mr. Taverne: Obviously I cannot anticipate the way in which the court would express itself, but presumably the reasons would cover those cases where the appeal is regarded as being without merit. If one accepts the principle that appeals without merit must be discouraged as a necessary concession to keep the number of appeals under some sort of control, this is the kind of circumstance one must accept. If there were nothing to be lost by exercising one's right, undoubtedly there would be a flood of appeals.
There is a minor difficulty about the Amendment but I do not put stress on it. The word "unanimously" is wrong because the powers may be exercised by a single judge. The main reason why I must reluctantly resist the Amendment is to enable meritorious appeals to be more swiftly heard than if this Amendment were allowed.

Mr. Archer: Can the Under-Secretary say how it is proposed to deal with the difficulty mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) when he moved the Amendment that in many cases it is quite impossible to predict whether the court will hold that an appeal is unmeritorious? One may have a hardened offender who appeals to the court in mercy to give him one more chance.

Mr. Taverne: This must be left either to the judge or to the criminal appeal court. I realise that there will be cases in which someone thought he was justified and where the court and the judge will hold that is an appeal without merit and he will lose time. That is an unfortunate necessity, however, which one has to accept to prevent a flood of appeals.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 38, at end insert
but such a direction shall not, in the case of any appellant, relate to a period in excess of 90 days".
Whatever the Under-Secretary may have said about the merit or otherwise of the last Amendment I moved, I hope he will agree that this is certainly not one without merit. I am sure the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) will accept that it is not an Amendment intended in any way to penalise people for making use of their right to appeal, because the purpose of this Amendment is exactly the opposite. While leaving in the discretion of the court power to make a direction where it feels fit, that due to the vexatious or unmeritorious nature of an appeal the time spent pending appeal should not count as sentence, the purpose of this Amendment is to say that that cannot be done in a way which would add more than 90 days to the sentence. The Amendment is specifically designed to limit the total length of the penalty which the appellant would be in a position to incur by reason of pursuing his right to appeal.
It is felt by those on this side of the House—I think the Under-Secretary conceded this on other occasions—that there is an obvious danger, or perhaps I should say, likelihood, that the passing of this Bill may lead to an increased number of appeals and the increasing number of appeals may mean that the delay in hearing in Bills which is already substantial may of necessity become greater still. It is wrong that a person should be unduly punished because he has pursued an unmeritorious appeal or because other people appealing has delayed his appeal. The average time now taken between conviction and the hearing of an appeal is about 18½ weeks. If that is the average time, obviously some appeals take considerably longer. Therefore, there are men in custody for perhaps up to five or six months awaiting the hearing of their appeal.
If the Bill leads to more appeals, that period may be enlarged still further and people may have to wait at least six months before appeals are heard. Prior to the introduction of the Bill, the length of time which a person could spend in


custody and which did not count towards his sentence was specifically laid down by enactment. In Section 38 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1948, the time is limited to six weeks. Section 38 says:
Subject as hereinafter provided, six weeks of the time during which any such appellant, when in custody, is specially treated as such in pursuance of rules made under section fifty-two of this Act, or the whole of that time if it is less than six weeks, shall be disregarded in computing the term of any such sentence as aforesaid:
In the Second Reading debate, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
It is only a limit of practice. If the hon. and learned Gentleman turns to the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, Section 38, be will find that there is no provision about 63 days or 42 days there either."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1966; Vol. 731, c. 1145.]

Mr. Taverne: I realise that I was wrong about that. There is provision for 42 days.

Mr. Carlisle: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees that there is a clear statutory provision for 42 days.
Section 38(2) of the 1948 Act is specifically repealed in Schedule 7 of the Bill. The effect of repealing that subsection and the effect of Clause 5 of the present Bill is that, in those cases where the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal makes a direction that the time spent in custody pending appeal should not rank towards the sentence, there is no statutory limit on the period between conviction and the date of the court's direction. In other words, the previous limitation laid down under the 1948 Act has disappeared. That is why we feel that the Amendment is necessary.
The hon. and learned Gentleman may tell me that there is an answer to this which I have overlooked, but the Amendment was felt to be justified as it attempts to set a limit on the time a person may be required to spend in custody on top of his sentence, merely because he has chosen to appeal. I commend the spirit of the Amendment to the Under-Secretary of State and I hope that he can accept it.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he deal with one matter with which he has not so far dealt? Why is the limit 90 days? Would he not agree that the

effect of putting in a limit of 90 days, when the present statutory limit in certain cases is 42 days and the limit in practice in other cases is 63, inevitably is that the court will tend to think that its power should be increased rather than decreased?

1.45 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: I should have dealt with this question. Obviously, some figure must be imposed and we were trying to fix a figure which would not unduly limit the court's discretion. At the moment, if no figure is imposed, of course, the existing average time taken in hearing an appeal is considerably longer than 90 days. It does not mean that, if appeals are heard earlier, the time need be 90 days, but we say 90 days should be the maximum additional time which anyone should be required to spend. The hon. and learned Gentleman might say that 60 days or 40 days would be just as valid. I concede that the figure chosen must be an arbitrary one. This figure was taken on the grounds that it is three months.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation, but part of it seemed to suggest that the factor which the court might take into account in extending the period would be the length of time which the man, through no fault of his own, had to wait before his appeal was heard. That surely cannot be right, and I hope that this is not what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting.

Mr. Carlisle: There was no intention to encourage the court to use its power to penalise or to extend the power. All we are saying is that, as at present drawn, if no provision of this kind is put in, it may mean that more than 90 days are spent in custody pending the appeal. We felt that three months was a reasonable term.

Mr. Taverne: I concede that this Amendment is not altogether without merit. It is certainly well-intentioned, although the period of 90 days has a somewhat unfortunate connotation—"90 days in custody" in other places. I also concede straight away that I made a mistake on Second Reading. While not wishing to be dogmatic, in the light of the fact that I made a mistake before,


I think that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that a specific provision for 42 days will not be preserved.
Under the previous law, the Court of Criminal Appeal could direct that the period which should be discounted should be shorter or longer than six weeks. The reasons I cannot accept the Amendment are those given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), in his questions. It may have the undesirable effect that, if a period is specifically mentioned, although as a maximum, it might lead the courts to suppose that this was the period which Parliament had in mind as reasonable.
If this is so, it might well mean that, in practice, those appellants who appeal without merit might lose a longer time than is the case at the moment. Although appeals take longer, on average, than 90 days, the time lost on appeal is normally still 63 days.
As drafted, the Clause seems an adequate deterrent in the difficult process of keeping a balance between the injustice of the lost time and the need to deter—a constant theme of a number of the Amendments. The Amendment might have the effect of tilting the balance too much on the side of injustice. For that reason, I would ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Antony Buck: I apologise for not having been in the Chamber for all the debate. I was disappointed in the hon. and learned Gentleman's response to the Amendment. He could go a little further in trusting the courts. There is no reason, if a maximum period is put on, why the court should at once regard itself as almost obliged to rule that the longer period would rank for sentence. I fail to understand that. This point could be made by a small alteration in the drafting. Perhaps by inserting the words "such a direction shall not in any event" we would indicate that this is very much a maximum period and would thereby give guidance to the court that it should not allow the full 90 days as a general rule.

The Amendment has great merit in bringing a further degree of certainty into the Bill. A person would know what he would, at worst, be up against. I admit that, while my name appears in support

of the Amendment, I had doubts about the period of 90 days. However, as I said in an intervention, it could be 100 days—which might have an even more unfortunate connotation in the mind of the Under-Secretary—or any other figure. Perhaps, on reflection, the hon. and learned Gentleman will think that 60 days would be appropriate.

It is unfortunate that although the Government concede that this is an Amendment of considerable merit—while there may be minor objections to it—the House of Commons has been manœuvred into a position in which the Government do not have time in which to take the Bill away for reconsideration so that our suggestions which have merit may be fully considered and, perhaps, inserted in the Measure. Here is an Amendment which the Under-Secretary admits has considerable merit, yet he cannot do anything about it. I regret the hon. and learned Gentleman's response, although I have great sympathy with him in view of the position in which he finds himself.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AT THE TRIAL.)

Mr. Buck: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 48, after "transcript" to insert "or such record".

The Chairman: Perhaps it would be convenient for the Committee to discuss at the same time, Amendment No. 13, in page 6, line 9, at end insert:
and that he shall have access to any such record.

Mr. Buck: That would be convenient, Sir Eric, because they go together and relate to an admirable Clause which provides
… for the making of a record (whether by means of shorthand notes, by mechanical means or otherwise) of any proceedings at assizes or quarter sessions in respect of which an appeal lies …
The real purpose of the Clause is to make more readily available the tape recordings of the proceedings, and hon. Members who have had experience of court work will agree that it is right that the new criminal branch of the Court of Appeal should be armed with transcripts and that they should be available in the original


oral form. We therefore welcome the Clause.
Bearing this in mind, the Amendment is designed to make it absolutely clear that the Court of Appeal can hear the tape recordings—as well as the Secretary of State; that comes under Amendment No. 13—which may be made under regulations made under the Clause. It is right, it may be thought, that the Court of Appeal should, in certain circumstances, hear the actual words uttered by the judge. We all know how, in the course of a judgment, words which can appear innocuous in type may have been delivered with a certain intonation which may be damaging and prejudicial. That is why, in certain circumstances, the Court of Appeal should be able to hear the actual words spoken. It may be said that the Clause as drafted makes this possible. If that is so, it is certainly not clear and the Amendment is designed to make it clear.

Mr. Taverne: I understand the purpose of the Amendment, and it was lucidly explained by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck). If I ask the Committee to reject it, it is not because I am being obstructive or because we lack time. Nor was that the reason why I urged the Committee to reject the last Amendment. I ask for it to be rejected because it is unnecessary and could have some undesirable consequences.
If it were accepted, rules would have to be made for the supply of records to the court and other persons, records including both shorthand notes and tapes. This means that the parties could, under those rules, get the shorthand notes and the tape. If the tape is in possession of one of the parties, it could be falsified or, if not falsified, damaged in some way.
Under the present rules shorthand notes are never supplied to anyone except the court. Under the rules in the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, it is stated in Rule 5B:
Shorthand notes shall be taken of the proceedings … and on … appeal a transcript of the notes … shall be made if the registrar so directs … for the use of the Court … or any judge thereof: Provided that a transcript shall be furnished to any party interested …
The aim of the rule is that the original records remain in official custody. The

Amendment would have the undesirable effect of breaking this rule. It would mean that the shorthand notes and tapes could be put in the possession of the parties.
The hon. Member for Colchester explained that the Amendment would enable the parties and the court to hear the original tape, but there is nothing to stop provision being made under the existing rules for the tape to be played back by the proper officer of the court on the instructions of the court or that it should be heard by the court. Under Section 18 of the 1907 Act rules may be made to
… regulate generally the practice and procedure under this Act …
The hon. Gentleman will see, therefore, that what he seeks to achieve by the Amendment can already be achieved by the existing rules. He will also see that Clause 11(3) states:
This Act, so far as it relates to appeals to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, shall be construed as one with the 1907 Act".
That means that the rules under Section 18 of the 1907 Act could provide the effect desired by the hon. Gentleman in his Amendment. The Supreme Court Rules Committee could make such rules.
I may be asked, "If the rules can be made for this purpose, why have Clause 6(1) at all?" The answer is that if express provision is made for particular rules, it is incumbent on the Rules Committee to make rules in this matter. Obviously the parties must have the transcript and, whether or not we make further provision in respect of tapes, that is something that can be left to the Rules Committee.

Mr. Buck: That does not appear to follow because Clause 6(1) merely provides that the
… court may provide … a record …
It is not mandatory. Does it necessarily follow that regulations must be made under the Clause?

2.0 p.m.

Mr. Taverne: The hon. Gentleman could argue that it is not absolutely essential but since certain rules are intended in the Bill itself it would be incumbent upon the Rules Committee to make rules dealing with that provision.
I do not think that there would be any undesirable side effects to Amendment No. 13, but again I do not feel that it is necessary. The Secretary of State has never yet had to call for the shorthand note but there is nothing to stop him asking for the tape. No rule prohibits his doing so because there were no tapes when the rules were made. Again, it might be asked—and in some ways it is a legitimate question—why there should be specific provision at all. In the past there were specific provisions about transcripts and hence there is a specific provision to that effect in this Bill. In almost all cases, transcripts will be sufficient but there is nothing to stop the Secretary of State calling for the tape.

Mr. Carlisle: The Under-Secretary of State has given an unsatisfactory answer. The Amendment is perfectly simple and would merely permit the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, if it thought it desirable, to listen to the tape recording of a trial. There is nothing in his point that this would mean that all the parties could have access to the tape. Clause 6(1) specifically says:
… the … transcript of any such record and for supplying the transcript … to the registrar of criminal appeals for the use of the criminal division of the Court of Appeal or any judge exercising the powers of a judge of that division and to such other persons and in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the rules.
If one is going to prescribe rules for the provision of the transcript or, as we say, the recording itself, surely one can prescribe the rules so that the record could be provided only to the Court of Appeal and to the judge and not to the parties.
Another confusing remark by the hon. and learned Gentleman—but perhaps it is my fault rather than his—was that there was no need to have rules for the Secretary of State because there were no tapes in existence at the time the previous rules were made and therefore the Home Secretary could, if he wished, call for a tape.

Mr. Taverne: There are no rules which prevent the Secretary of State getting the tape.

Mr. Carlisle: Surely the purpose of the Clause, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) pointed out, is to make rules covering the use of the tape or transcripts from the tape. If one is

specifically making rules for that purpose, surely it is better to make specific rules which would permit a tape to be provided to the court or to the Home Secretary.
I strongly support what my hon. Friend said about the merits. Time and again one has had the experience of saying to a judge in court, "I agree, my Lord. On reading the transcript it appears all right". But one knows at the same time that the important aspect was the intonation of the voice and the effect of the words.
One of the objectives of going over to tape recorders rather than the use of shorthand notes is not only the saving of costs in the use of shorthand writers but also that the emphasis given to words and the intonation with which they were used can be shown by playing back tapes. I regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not accepting the Amendment which, though of a minor nature, would assist the Court of Appeal and the Secretary of State.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State will look at this matter again. I feel great sympathy with what has been said by hon. Members opposite. If we are putting into a Statute certain provisions which supersede what may have taken place in the past, then, under the ordinary rules of construction, once that Statute is passed it will be assumed, from the fact that a particular power is not expressed, that it is intended to be excluded. Surely that will be the probable reading of this Measure in future, notwithstanding that a tape recording may be in existence. If there were doubt it would be desirable to set it at rest. This is an occasion when my hon. and learned Friend might feel it proper to accept the advice given by the Committee and think again.

Mr. Buck: I will keep the advice going a little longer while the Under-Secretary of State cogitates and considers the great wisdom of the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). The arguments deployed by the Under-Secretary of State were either arguments against having the Clause at all or concealed arguments really in favour of having a more complete direction about these matters. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot blow hot and cold in this way. Either


regulations are necessary, in which case they should cover all relevant matters, including what is suggested by my Amendments, or the whole Clause is superfluous.
As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle), there seems no validity in the point about the parties getting the tape, taking it away, tampering with it and turning it into an inaccurate record. The regulations made under the rules of court in accordance with this Clause could provide for that circumstance.
The rules could provide that a tape supplied to any of the parties should be an oral copy of the original. Copies can be made of tapes. I am glad the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the consideration of tampering with the record did not apply to Amendment No. 13, which relates to the supply of advice to the Secretary of State. Nothing has been said which casts any doubt on the merits of the Amendments and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will consider whether they could not be accepted.

Mr. Taverne: I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment. As the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said, this is not a matter of great importance. I do not think that the point I made was without validity. Clause 6 suggests that rules should be made to provide for supplying the record to other persons apart from the Registrar
… in such circumstances as may be prescribed …
It suggests that the rules should be made for supplying it to those persons. This is contrary to the existing rules.
In reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) I would say that, if the point he made had any validity, it would be a strong argument in favour of the Amendment but that it cannot have validity. He should look at the words of Section 18 of the 1907 Act, which are comprehensive. Section 18 says that
Rules … may … be made … and may regulate generally the practice and procedure under this Act …
It was these rules under which Rule 5B was made. There is nothing in the Amendments and I ask the Committee not to accept them.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 6, line 9, at end insert:
(3) The cost of making any such record in pursuance of the rules and the cost of making and supplying in pursuance of the rules or the last foregoing subsection any transcript ordered to be supplied to the registrar of criminal appeals or the Secretary of State shall be defrayed, in accordance with scales of payment fixed for the time being by the Treasury, out of moneys provided by Parliament, and the cost of providing and installing at a court of assize or quarter sessions any equipment required for the purpose of making any such record or transcript shall also be defrayed out of moneys so provided.—[Mr. Taverne.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.—(PROVISIONS AS TO NORTHERN IRELAND.)

Amendments made: In page 7, line 23, after "sections", insert "(Duty to admit fresh evidence)".

In page 7, line 28, after "sections", insert "(Duty to admit fresh evidence)".

In line 37, at end insert:
(c) for the references in section (Duty to admit fresh evidence) to section 9 of the 1907 Act there shall be substituted references to section 9 of the said Act of 1930.—[Mr. Taverne.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2.—(DUTY TO ADMIT FRESH EVIDENCE.)

Without prejudice to the generality of section 9 of the 1907 Act (supplemental powers), where evidence is tendered to the Court of Appeal under that section, the Court shall, unless they are satisfied that the evidence if received would not afford any ground for allowing the appeal, exercise their power under that section of receiving it if—

(a) it appears to them that the evidence is likely to be credible and would have been admissible at the trial on an issue which is the subject of the appeal; and
(b) they are satisfied that it was not adduced at the trial, but that there is a reasonable explanation for the failure so to adduce it.—[Mr. Taverne.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1.—(APPEALS FROM AND CONFIRMATION OF FINDINGS OF COURTSMARTIAL.)

Amendments made: In page 10, line 20, at end insert:
7.—(1) The Courts-Martial Appeal Court may, whether or not the Court make an order under section 13 of the 1951 Act (orders for payment of costs by or to the appellant), order the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as appear to the Court reasonably sufficient to compensate any person properly attending to give evidence on an appeal under that Act or in proceedings preliminary or incidental to such an appeal, whether or not he gives evidence, for the expense, trouble or loss of time properly incurred in or incidental to his attendance.

In page 10, line 20, at end insert:
7. Without prejudice to the generality of section 8 of the 1951 Act (supplemental powers), where evidence is tendered to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court under that section the Court shall, unless they are satisfied that the evidence if received would not afford any ground for allowing the appeal, exercise their power under that section of receiving it if—

(a) it appears to them that the evidence is likely to be credible and would have been admissible at the trial on an issue which is the subject of the appeal; and
(b) they are satisfied that it was not adduced at the trial, but that there is a reasonable explanation for the failure so to adduce it.—[Mr. Taverne.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second and Third Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.—[Mr. Taverne.]

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I should like to say a few words about the proposal that the Bill should be considered on Report at this stage. A number of important points have been made in Committee upon a Bill which I regard as being of very great importance. Many of the points made have a great deal of substance. Indeed, my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State accepted this, even though he found himself unable to accept some of the Amendments proposed. It would have been wiser, certainly in retrospect, if this important Bill, arising from the work of a very important Committee, had been considered upstairs rather than on the Floor of the House and certainly at a more leisurely pace than has been possible so far. But this is not the time or place

to make any proposal relating to that. What I can do is to ask my hon. and learned Friend if he thinks that a few days' delay will harm the timetable which I quite understand he desires to fulfil. It would at least gain a little time for him and his advisers to consider again some of the proposals which have been made in the course of today's debate and to which he had to give a very speedy answer, which we fully understand had to be negative in the circumstances.
I cannot believe that if this matter came before the House again in a few days' time, with the possibility of one or two Amendments after reconsideration by my hon. and learned Friend, it would take up the time of the House to such an extent as to cause us to have to come back even for a small part of a day. That would be a great compliment to the very hard and conscientious work put in by the Donovan Committee, which I am sure did not expect that its proposals would be passed through this House without a great deal of consideration and possibly amendment. I ask my hon. and learned Friend to think again about this matter, and I hope that he will take the view that it is not necessary to proceed to the Report stage of the Bill now.

Mr. Buck: I should like to reinforce what has just been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). It would seem appropriate that we should have what is described as a pause, a breathing space, for us to be able to reflect a little on what has been decided. It is particularly unfortunate that the matter is having to be considered now on Report stage on a Friday, when it is notoriously difficult for lawyers to be present. That is no doubt one of the reasons why until this very moment we have not had the pleasure of the presence of the Attorney-General. How nice it is to see him here now. This confirms a great deal of what I was about to say. It would be extremely desirable on the Report stage of a Bill as important as this to have the benefit of the presence of more of our colleagues and, in particular, the benefit of the presence of one of the Law Officers of the Crown.
I should not like any hon. Member to think that we have not been delighted by the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary has handled this matter from


the personal point of view, but he has clearly been in something of a strait-jacket and his good nature has been striving to assert itself, as has been apparent by the reception he has tried to give some of our Amendments. But now is the time for a breathing space for him to consider our Amendments which are of substance which it should be possible to put before the House on Report stage. It is not right that we should have this important Bill hurried through the House in this way, and at a time which makes it notoriously difficult for so many people who are involved in the law to be present.
This is the second occasion on which the Bill has been considered on a Friday. This is the first time since the Second Reading that we have had the pleasure of the attendance of one of the Law Officers. It is difficult for my learned Friends, with their heavy practice demands, to be present, and some of us have had a certain amount of difficulty dashing to get here, even though we have only modest practices. It is unfortunate that the Bill is being considered at this time. The matter can largely be put right if we have a delay of a day or two, and if we consider this matter on Report at a more normal time.

Mr. Carlisle: I support what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck). In doing so, may I make it clear that it is not our intention to try to prevent the Bill going through the House.
It has been accepted by both sides of the House that the Bill should receive its Third Reading and Royal Assent before the beginning of the new law term. If, therefore, the Under-Secretary of State says that because of the Parliamentary timetable it is impossible to do other than take the Report stage this afternoon, I suppose that we would, with regret, have to accept that, but I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider this further.
Three Amendments have been put forward which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, have merit. One of them, for the reasons mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich,

the hon. and learned Gentleman was unable to accept, but he might like time to consider it. One Amendment dealt with the record, and one dealt with the limitation of the time spent in custody by someone awaiting appeal.
But there is another and more important matter. At the last sitting of the Committee I moved an Amendment to delete subsection (2) of Clause 4 which deals with the power of the court to increase the severity of the sentence. It is probably due to the fact that that Amendment was selected, that an Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich and others which attempted to define severity was not selected.
After our proceedings on that day I went to the Table Office to inquire whether, as the Amendment which I had moved had been defeated, it was possible to move an Amendment on Report to define the word "severity". As I understand what I was told—and I hope that I understood it correctly—it is impossible to put down an Amendment for consideration on Report while the Committee stage is still in progress.
It has, therefore, been impossible to put down an Amendment for consideration on Report, but, as I share the view expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, that this is a Bill of considerable importance, and as I believe that it could be disposed of in a quarter of an hour at some stage, perhaps a very late stage indeed on one of the three nights next week, I invite the Under-Secretary of State to consider doing that, although I repeat that we have no desire to prevent the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Taverne: I am sorry if it is felt by some hon. Members that this matter has been rushed. I thought that this afternoon hon. Members made the points which they wished to make. Two afternoons have been devoted to the Committee stage of the Bill, and I think that we have had a full discussion on every Amendment which has been put forward. If hon. Members feel that they wish to return to the matter, and to move new Amendments on Report, we should be reluctant to stand in their way, because this is something which, in the normal course of events, they would have


a right to do if the Report stage were not taken at the same time as the Committee stage.
Certainly there is pressure on the Parliamentary timetable, as I think everybody realises. Perhaps it would be possible for the House to meet again at about 6 o'clock in the morning to discuss, no doubt with a fresh approach, matters which we have discussed at considerable length in Committee, but I have no doubt that hon. Members will then protest about a Bill of such importance being taken at such an unearthly hour.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: It is unlikely that any hon. and learned Members will be in court at that hour.

Mr. Taverne: It is also rather unlikely that they will be in court the next day.
The Government do not wish to reconsider Amendments which have been fully discussed in Committee. Nor, as far as I am concerned, is this a case in which the House should be given a further opportunity of considering the Amendments which have been moved, and rejected or accepted. It is not the sort of case where, because an Amendment has been accepted, the whole nature of the Bill has been changed and the House might wish to look at it again in the light of the changes which have been brought about.
There have been occasions during the last few years when the Report stage has immediately followed the Committee stage. On one of these occasions an Amendment which was moved at a late stage altered the shape of the Bill. The House asked for further time to consider the effect of the Amendment, and the Report stage was not proceeded with then.
On another occasion, when there was nothing new to come up, the House accepted that the Report stage could follow the Committee stage immediately. It is a matter entirely for the House, but, in my view, this is not a case in which something new has arisen, which calls for a separate discussion on another occasion, nor do we wish to reconsider the matters which have been dealt with in the course of this afternoon's discussion.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered.

2.27 p.m.

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has been generally welcomed. It has been fully discussed although, as I said earlier, I regret that a number of hon. Members feel that the discussions have been rushed. I do not think that at this stage there is much that I wish to add to what has been said already.
It is generally agreed that this is a valuable Bill. It achieves a number of valuable objects. It enhances the status of the appellate court and achieves a greater measure of continuity in its composition. It makes more courts available for the hearing of criminal appeals. It authorises the appointment of additional senior staff in the criminal appeal office. It will probably give greater protection to innocent persons who may be wrongly convicted, perhaps through wrongful identification. By abolishing the power to increase sentences, most of us feel that it removes a provision which had a number of undesirable effects and it means that fewer appellants will be penalised for exercising their right of appeal. For this reason, it is a valuable Bill and on behalf of the Home Office and on behalf of the Government I should like to express our great feeling of indebtedness to the Donovan Committee for its excellent work, and I commend the Bill to the House.

2.28 p.m.

Mr. Carlisle: I, too, welcome the Bill. The Under-Secretary of State said a few moments ago that there was a suggestion that discussions on the Bill had been rushed. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I was not suggesting that. I do not think that the discussion has been rushed, but one of the ways in which the Bill has been improved between the Second Reading and now is by the Government accepting a new Clause today, and in that respect I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that three weeks ago he said that he could not possibly accept it. He said today that the Home Office no longer wished to reconsider these matters. I hope that in three weeks' time he will not regret that he did not take further time to consider some of the matters raised today.
During the Second Reading debate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) said that the Bill did not make dramatic changes in the procedure of the courts of this country but that it did, and I believe does, make useful changes. As has been said, it implements the recommendation of an independent interdepartmental committee which was set up by the previous Administration, and it is the fruits of its work which are now being accepted by the present Administration.
The Court of Criminal Appeal has a noble history, and it has become an important part of the legal procedure of our country. I believe that this Bill will help to improve the standing of that court in the eyes of the public. The new composition of the court will help make for uniformity of decisions coming from the court and, at the same time, it will still rely on the experience of judges on assize of the state of crime in the country.
By widening the grounds of appeal, I believe that we shall assist in ensuring that the new Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal can in all cases see that justice is done. I believe, too, that we have assisted in that way by the Amendment on fresh evidence.
On behalf of this side of the House, I hope sincerely that the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal will, over the years, continue to enjoy the same reputation as the Court of Criminal Appeal has always had up till now.

2.31 p.m.

Mr. Buck: May I take this opportunity, though I was not able to be present at the beginning of the debate, of expressing my gratitude for the fact that the Bill now contains a provision for the admission of fresh evidence and clarifies the law, which was the acceptance of the Amendment which I put down at an earlier stage and/or the acceptance of the new Clause which was put down from the other side.
The Under-Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) have welcomed the Bill, and so

do I. It is an admirable Bill which reflects the very hard work which was done by the Donovan Committee.
I would like to see this Bill which provides for the reform of one of our courts and for the reorganisation of it as part of a legislative scheme which we might have had in this Session for such things as majority verdicts on juries and reforming many other matters in our system. Even in isolation, we welcome the Bill as being a contribution to the reorganisation in the judicial system.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — LAND REGISTRATION BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put pursuant to Order [25th April],That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — LAND REGISTRATION [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session amending the Land Registration Act, 1925, it is expedient to authorise any increase attibutable to that Act in the sums payable out of the Consolidated Fund under section 5 of the Land Registration Act 1936 into the Insurance Fund under the said Act of 1925.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put pursuant to Order [25th April],That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF AVIATION (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS)

2.34 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Transfer of Functions (Civil Aviation) Order 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 741), dated 22nd June 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th June, be annulled.
I should begin by declaring an interest, which I have declared in debates on this subject more than once before. I am a director of Handley-Page Ltd. and, therefore, connected with the aviation industry. In the circumstances, I hope that need not inhibit my putting the views of my right hon. and hon. Friends, particularly since my company has never been connected with the sponsored groups, and we operate as best we can on our own.
In this Order, we are concerned with one of the three main redistributions of responsibility which follow from the Government's decision to do away with the Ministry of Aviation. As I understand it, the particular activities which this Order covers are the following, and they will pass to the Board of Trade: the Air Traffic Control services; the oversight of the State Corporations and independent airlines; the question of aerodromes and liaison with the new Airport Authority; air safety in its various forms and subdivisions; aviation overseas policy; and the barter, in particular, of traffic rights.
In order to judge the proposal in the Order in perspective, which is important, it is necessary to see it alongside the other two of the three main sub-divisions. We are talking of what is in many respects the most complicated sector in the whole sphere of our administration, dealing as it does with relations between the Government, air transportation, the aircraft industry and the needs of our defence. All those have a bearing of some kind on the Order.
We are dealing with an area which is dominated constantly by invention, with vast sums of money both public and private, and with some of the world's fastest-growing markets; in other words, with a scene which, willy-nilly, is shifting constantly.
When the Prime Minister made his statement about this on 16th June, he


referred to the extreme complexity of the problem. I think that the main burden of our doubts about the Order lies in the fact that the Government, while appreciating the complexity, on the Prime Minister's admission, have chosen this moment to throw what I would term the whole aviation complex into further confusion.
If, as I have, one inquires into the probable course of events as a result of the Order, one is told that while the broad decisions have been taken, the details have still to be worked out. If I may say so to the Financial Secretary, that is typical of so much that this Government do, and I suggest that it is only from an exhaustive examination of the detailed working of this Ministry and its intricate relationships that the Government could hope to bring about any improvement.
We doubt whether the Government have made such an examination. In his statement, the Prime Minister said in effect that the aircraft industry is a significant part of the engineering industry as a whole and therefore should be lumped together with it for certain purposes. He added that, since the problems of air transport were roughly analogous to those in the shipping industry—if I may say so, pretty roughly—these two should be lumped together as well.
That is really all that we have heard. We have heard no detailed supporting arguments at all.
And so we have these major changes at a moment when the industry is in a state of grave uncertainty, and when the administrative machine in Whitehall as a whole is in a state of flux due to changes in other sectors of the Administration, particularly fiscal changes. No one of this side of the House could claim this decision has resulted from the examinations of the Plowden Committee either, since the reorganisation of the Ministry of Aviation did not lie within its terms of reference, although Lord Plowden devoted a couple of paragraphs to the subject in his Report, since the matter had cropped up so often.
If I may say so, this is in strong contrast to the Conservative Government's approach to the reorganisation of the aviation industry as a whole. Mr. Julian

Amery initiated an inquiry into this subject in 1963, and it was undertaken by Sir Frank Lee. Later, there were two full-scale meetings of representatives of the aircraft and aviation industries, senior representatives from both the airlines, as well as representatives of the manufacturers. The first meeting was held at Chequers, in March, 1963, and the second was at Lancaster House, in July 1964. Their object was to discuss all aspects of this question, including the present proposals which, in more or less the same form, I think, were mooted at the time. This represented a pretty detailed examination.
I understand, and if I am wrong I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will correct me, that the conclusion was that, in effect the civil and military sides of the industry were indivisible, and that this consideration was particularly important with regard to our success in international markets. I believe that this would still have been the general view of those in the aircraft industry had they been consulted about this reorganisation, and I must ask the Financial Secretary why they were not consulted on this occasion.
The Prime Minister said in his statement—and I think that he was questioned by one of my hon. Friends on the same subject—that he did not think that the leaders of the aircraft industry would agree to his proposals. But that seems to me to be all the more reason for taking them into the confidence of the Government and discussing the matter with them before these very far reaching decisions were taken. I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that the S.B.A.C. has, or had, some very constructive and, interesting suggestions to make in relation to the future of the Ministry of Aviation. I do not think that those suggestions were ever taken into consideration at all. At the very least, the industry would say—and I believe this to be entirely the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends—that before changing the present arrangements, it is incumbent on the Government and on this House to give very careful consideration to the disadvantages of the alternatives.
Two things have been basically wrong with the working of the Ministry of


Aviation. First, there are the difficulties that have arisen from a lack of direct contact between the users and the makers of our aircraft, particularly in connection with defence procurement. I believe that that view would be generally agreed in the industry, and widely in this House.
Secondly, there is the problem of the isolation of a vital field of research and development from the rest of industry as a whole, which results, or perhaps has resulted, from a certain isolation of the Government experimental stations and the consequent probable loss of fall-out knowledge which could be of critical importance to the rest of industry.
These two problems must be dealt with, but I submit that this Order will have little or no effect on either of them. What advantages the Order will bring—and I am ready to concede that there might be some, though I would doubt whether they would be major ones in comparison with the size of the problem as a whole—we have yet to learn. I hope that we shall learn something of them from the Financial Secretary.
The advantages are not easily discernible, whereas the dangers are. I believe that there are three main dangers and that, in one degree or another, they all relate to the manufacture of civil aircraft, which is the area which this Government have repeatedly said they are particularly keen on forwarding. This also was the recommendation of the Plowden Committee.
The first of these three dangers—and I am talking strictly within the context of this Order rather than on the general question of the reorganisation of the Ministry—is as follows. I believe it to be increasingly important today to coordinate airline Corporation buying policies and international air traffic rights—both of which are now to pass to the Board of Trade—with transport aircraft development, because the complex technological problems of aircraft control and air safety in all its forms are becoming ever more closely connected with civil aircraft performance. In other words, research and development on civil aircraft must take increasing account of them. No one can tell me that this will be rendered any easier by removing these two important functions to two separate Ministries.
The second main danger as I see it is that the air corporations have understandably sectional interests, perfectly properly, with regard to their own profitability. Their instructions are, and have been for many years, quite clear. It is their business to make a profit. On the other hand, they are not interested in the profitability, or as perhaps I may put it, the foreign exchange earning capacity of the aviation complex as a whole. Their tendency over recent years has been to turn alarmingly towards the purchase of foreign aircraft, and I am personally by no means satisfied that this reflects in any way badly on our own aircraft. I think that the Corporations' decisions from time to time have turned on administrative considerations as much as anything else. Be that as it may, this is a most serious aspect of our aviation policy as a whole.
I submit this to the Financial Secretary as a serious point. The Board of Trade must surely be less likely than was the Ministry of Aviation, with all its experience and its global outlook on the industry, to challenge this sectional interest, and more likely to recommend to the Transport Aircraft Requirements Committee—an important body in this connection—that they should allow the Corporations to buy whatever seems best to them on the day of need; rather than that plans should be prepared well ahead of time in order to meet the Corporations' requirements so that the planes can be produced in this country.
It follows that from now on, if this reorganisation takes place, the importance of the Transport Aircraft Requirements Committee becomes even greater than it has been up to now. The hon. and learned Gentleman will have noted in the relevant paragraphs of the Plowden Report that, regardless of this reorganisation, the Plowden Committee had certain specific and important recommendations to make with regard to this Committee. Now that the cohesion of research and development of civil aircraft is likely to be weakened, I think that those recommendations should be given great attention at the earliest possible moment. In particular, the necessity is to strengthen the secretariat of the Committee, and the Government might also like to look at the numbers involved. This is a very large and unwieldy grouping.
The third danger is broader. Whereas formerly there was only one Minister who had the duty of resolving the many complex problems and differences of interest between air carriers and the industry, there are now to be three, of whom the one we are now discussing is the President of the Board of Trade.
No matter what party is in power, it is surely true that each Minister will always tend to represent a different interest, and I believe that this breaking down of the Ministry of Aviation will tend to throw a number of problems which up to now, and over recent years, have been resolved centrally by the Minister of Aviation, up to the Cabinet, with consequent delays in decision. This is a fast moving industry if it is nothing else and I must represent to the Financial Secretary, that in the past it has suffered gravely from slow decision-making, even with the present centralised approach. Therefore, I believe it is perfectly understandable that there should be misgivings about the consequences of this action as a whole and this Order in particular among the airlines as well as in the aircraft industry.
All these problems on which I have touched this afternoon were identified quite clearly in the 1950s, and the result was the creation of the Ministry of Aviation. In 1963 there was a major conference at which all concerned in the industry and airlines were consulted, under the auspices of the Ministry of Aviation at the time, to review the position. It was then decided that the best course was to strengthen and improve the existing organisation. The Ministry of Aviation may not have succeeded in all respects but its achievements have nevertheless been considerable. To dismantle this whole machinery is an extremely serious administrative step, particularly in the light of all known past advice as far as I can trace it.
It may be that the present Order is the least controversial of the three aspects. Nevertheless, as I have tried to explain, it is dangerous and I would conclude by saying to the Financial Secretary the aviation complex as a whole is a massive earner of foreign exchange and also, I believe, an essential lead technology. I am not sure that the most important and pregnant passages of the

whole of the Plowden Committee's Report was not the conclusion of their section on technology, in which they say no other technology could have such a pervasive effect or influence on industry as a whole as aviation. It seems to me that here we have the crux of the problem.
The object, therefore, of any change in these administrative arrangements must be to improve the capacity of the aerospace industry, to earn foreign exchange and profits; and it does not follow that to split its relationship with the Government between three separate Ministries will necessarily accomplish this. I believe this lies at the heart of our misgivings over this Order and the policy as a whole and it is in the light of this objective alone that we shall judge the Minister's arguments this afternoon and the results of the Government's actions.

2.55 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I thought perhaps other hon. Members wished to intervene, but I gladly reply straight away to the powerful speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings). First of all, may I confirm with one small addition what he said as to the effect of the Order. What it does is to effect the first stage, the first part of the transfer of functions, from the Ministry of Civil Aviation to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The functions which are transferred at this stage are those of airport policy, the National Air Traffic Control Organisation, which is run jointly with the Ministry of Defence, the international regulation of Civil Aviation and the negotiation of traffic rights, safety matters, aviation and flying safety matters, and the final one, which I believe the hon. Member overlooked, accident investigation.
The hon. Member, as I anticipated, set his remarks under this head within the wider context of the decision announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the dissolution of the Ministry of Aviation and the distribution of its functions as between the Ministry of Technology and the Board of Trade; and the interests of the Ministry of Defence on matters of procurement policy


are, as my right hon. Friend announced, the subject of a continuing and special study. First, the hon. Member asked a question as to why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has chosen this moment, as he put it, to throw the industry into confusion. I would substitute for those words, why has he chosen this moment to make the decision? I do not believe there there can be any dispute that the future of the Ministry is something which has been the subject of speculation and discussion for some considerable time.
The Plowden Committee, as the hon. Member says, shortly discussed the issues involved. It was not, of course, directly within the terms of reference of the Committee, and it certainly was not for it to make any recommendation. The Committee did make a recommendation that a decision should be reached, and reached urgently, because of the uncertainty that was overhanging the industry as a result of the criticisms which were voiced of the existing system. It will be remembered that in its Report the Plowden Committee drew attention to some of the evidence which had been given to it, sometimes forcibly, and in particular the evidence of representatives of the Ministry of Defence Air Force Department, criticising the present system in the matter of aircraft procurement. Those witnesses had pointed out the drawbacks which there would be if the whole of functions of research, development and sponsorship of the industry were transferred to the Ministry of Defence, including the risk that the civil interests of the industry, which many feel are and should be of growing importance, would be unreasonably subordinated to the military interests. They referred, also, to the evidence of many witnesses from the industry that the intermediary position of the Ministry between the customer and the supplier incurred greater drawbacks than it offered advantages.
These were some of the considerations which led the Committee to urge that a decision should be taken early, and therefore I cannot accept that this was an inopportune moment. When one considers the moment at which the decision was made, I would remind the House first of all that it has been made after and in the context of the Defence Review and some of the major decisions about future

aircraft development which have been made by this Government.
Second, it has been made at a time when the issues which have to be decided about the industry have been marshalled and presented by the Plowden Committee, and at a time, also, when the question of the future purchasing policy of the air corporations has just come up for decision, the basic decision having been announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation last Tuesday. There still remain to be decided the vital questions about the future relationship between the Government and the industry.
The main considerations were all reviewed and dealt with in the Plowden Report, the conclusions of which, I think, have commanded general assent. In past years, a disproportionate share of the country's resources has been tied up in an industry which has been spiralling in its costs and has been suffering financial losses and falling exports. Second, the difficulties confronting the industry are difficulties which confront every advanced technological industry in this country. I think we are all firmly of the view that it is a primary national interest to maintain an effective and viable aircraft industry, but what we must decide is the right scale and scope of that industry.
As was said in one of the more contentious conclusions of the Plowden Committee,
the aim of policy should be to create conditions in which industry can thrive with no more support or protection than that given to comparable industries in Britain".

Mr. Hastings: This is an important statement and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, one of the most contentious in the whole Report. Can he instance a truly comparable industry in this country?

Mr. MacDermot: All this matter was argued out in the debate last February and it was answered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation. Clearly, the comparable industries for this purpose are the other technological industries, as he then said.
This is the major decision which has been taken, that responsibility for research and development and sponsorship of the industry should be transferred to the Ministry of Technology. As the hon. Gentleman said as his last point,


this is a lead industry for technology, and so much of this country's technological development is bound up with the future of the aviation industry. In this context, I prefer to use the wider term, the aerospace industry.
From the point of view of the machinery of Government, the basic question was whether it was right to have two Ministries, as it were, vying and competing with each other in the forefront of this crucial sector for the future of our economy. We all agree that the development of the technology and science-based industries is the key to our economic future. Obviously, my right hon. Friend's decision implies his belief that it is right not to disperse the efforts, as it were, within the Government machine as between two Ministries but to bring them together in the Ministry of Technology. It is for that reason, and on the same principles, that responsibility for the shipbuilding industry has been transferred from the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Technology. This is really the starting point and basic decision.
There remains the problem of the lack of contact which there has been between users and producers, particularly in military procurement. As announced by the Prime Minister, this matter is being studied urgently by a Committee in order to see what the right division of functions between the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Technology should be in these vital matters for defence policy.
It is against that background that we consider this Order, which transfers the first part of the civil aviation functions to the Board of Trade. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear why this was being done in two stages—that until the basic decisions were taken about the future purchasing policy of the civil aircraft Corporations, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., he thought it right to leave those matters with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation. Now that the basic decisions have been taken, there still remain to be decided the questions of precisely which aircraft B.E.A. will purchase. But, since the basic decisions have been taken, I may inform the House that it is the Prime Minister's intention to continue the process and quite shortly to transfer the remaining functions in civil aviation to the Board of Trade.
The hon. Gentleman put forward what he said were the dangers in the decision to separate responsibility for civil aviation and, in particular, the responsibility for the Government's relations with the air Corporations, from the sponsorship of the aviation industry. First, he argued that it was necessary to co-ordinate the airline buying policies and air traffic rights with transport aircraft development. I should not challenge as a proposition that coordination is needed. I merely echo what the Prime Minister said: these decisions are very difficult, and the arguments are very nicely balanced. This is reflected by the amount of change since the war in governmental responsibility for this industry.
Some have argued that the development of aircraft in this country may have suffered from being tied and tailored too much to the specific needs of our air Corporations. This may be one of the reasons why we have not had greater success in exporting. While obviously a primary need of our air industry must be to serve the needs of our air Corporations, there may be advantages in having the different interests reflected by a separation of responsibility in different Departments where the matter can be effectively argued. This, in effect, is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's second point about the air Corporations' sectional interests with regard——

Mr. Hastings: The hon. and learned Gentleman's first point is surely the responsibility of the Transport Aircraft Requirements Committee. Mistakes have been made in this respect in the past; and I should not dispute that mistakes have been made. This is a failure of that Committee. I was seeking to argue that with this division the dangers are present, but the importance of this Committee becomes even greater than before and, therefore, great attention should be paid to it.

Mr. MacDermot: I should not dispute that. But in a field in which so much Government money is involved and Government responsibility is so great, any Government must arrive at a balanced judgment of its own in the first instance about what it considers should be the policy. The hon. Member is arguing, as others have argued, that there are


advantages in having all of these matters under the umbrella of one Minister. As he said, formerly there was only one Minister resolving the conflicting interests, now there are three. With my modest experience of government I am not sure that I agree with his proposition that it is an advantage to have but one Minister.
If there really are conflicting interests, as there are here, it is a great advantage co have different Ministers representing the different interests. The truth is that these matters are so important, the amount of money involved is so great, that they are bound to be Government decisions. The Treasury is vitally concerned in these decisions, but these are matters which go, in any event, to the Cabinet. There is very great advantage for the interests concerned if each have a Department and a Minister arguing its case so that the matter is resolved, and the conflict fought out at higher levels.
Expressing a personal view, I think that there are real advantages, if one can get the conflicting interests properly delineated, in having them spread between different Ministries. This depends upon one's viewpoint as to what makes the most effective machinery of government under our Cabinet system. The same argument applies to the point which I am about to move to, relating to the sectional interests of the Air Corporations which are naturally concerned with their own profit-earning capacity, and not with the wider interests of the aviation industry as a whole.
On final point, which was not referred to by the hon. Member but which may be in the minds of some hon. Members, is the reason for these functions of civil aviation being transferred to the Board of Trade rather than, as some might argue, the Ministry of Transport. There was a time in the past when these functions did rest for a while with the Ministry of Transport. If we were only concerned with internal transport considerations, there would be an obvious argument when we are trying to get better coordination between road and rail and sea transport to co-ordinate air transport also.
In this matter we are not only concerned with internal transport, and from a Governmental point of view it is the external consideration which assumes the greater

importance. It is in these matters of negotiation of traffic rights and the international regulation of civil aviation that the commercial and international experience of the Board of Trade makes it the more natural department to assume these responsibilities. I take it, impliedly, that this view is shared by the hon. Gentleman as he did not offer criticism on this point.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his statement, the functions here are similar to those exercised by the Board of Trade in the shipping sphere. It is our view that this would make for a more effective and a better system. The Ministry of Transport is a very heavily engaged Ministry at present; it is reviewing the whole order of transport policy. Although the arguments are nicely balanced I would commend the decision of my right hon. Friend to the House as being the right one.

3.14 p.m.

Mr. Cranky Onslow: I must apologise to the House for not being able to be in my place when this debate began. It was for this reason that I did not seek to intervene before the Financial Secretary spoke. I am most grateful for the opportunity of hearing him. I do not wish to quarrel with some of the points he made, although while it is undoubtedly true that there is a continuing momentum for decisions in the history and the future of the aircraft industry, for some months it has been arguable that decisions ought to have been taken much sooner than they have been needed and that many others still remain outstanding.
Secondly, it is ironic and fortunate that some decisions were deferred because, curiously enough deferment of decisions about the purchase of aircraft by British airlines until the advent of the present economic crisis must have greatly strengthened the hand of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Aviation in insuring that B.E.A. continued to purchase its aircraft in this country.
I hope that the management of British European Airways will now make it un-mistakeably plain to the industry and the country that the aircraft which it is to buy and which, I am delighted to hear, are to made in this country are fine aircraft in their own right. I hope that


there will be no recriminations or continued quarrels on this score. What we need now is a demonstration of confidence in the capacity of the British aircraft industry to make commercially efficient competitive aircraft, as I am certain that it can, and although the Minister has said so, we are still waiting for B.E.A. to make this perfectly clear, as I hope it will.
I am sorry that the Financial Secretary relied as much as he did on the conclusions of the Plowden Committee. We could have a prolonged semantic debate about the meaning of the word "comparable" in this context and I challenged the Minister on this issue when the matter was debated in February My own views were powerfully reinforced by what lord Plowden himself had to say about what he meant by "comparable" when he discussed his Report and the circumstances in which his Committee had been obliged to prepare it when he made clear in a debate not only that he had scarcely been given time enough to complete a proper report, but that he had meant the word "comparable" to have a different meaning from what the Minister evidently imagined.
The Order contains the decision to hive off some of the powers of the Ministry of Aviation, perhaps the easiest of the decisions to be taken in this dismantling process, although not entirely insignificant. The Board of Trade will have a fairly long list of work under at least three of the main headings of authority transferred to it. Urgent decisions have to be made about civil airport policy, some of which have been affected by the credit squeeze, but which are nevertheless urgent and which must be made. Some might have overridden the necessities of the credit squeeze, particularly that concerning the construction of the cargo terminal at Heathrow which will be a major currency earner. I am sorry to hear that it is likely to be seriously affected by the stringency which the Government have imposed.
Important decisions have to be taken about traffic rights. New traffic rights have been obtained by negotiation in the Western hemisphere and must be taken up, but if they are not promptly taken up by B.O.A.C., I hope that there will be no doctrinaire objection on the Government

Benches to their being taken up by other operators, because they are all part of British trade and British venture, and the fact that the British Government have secured rights ought not to mean that they will allow those rights to be taken only by the nationalised Corporations.
Thirdly, there is the issue of air safety, which is extremely urgent. I have been rather disturbed at certain incidents at major and minor air displays in the country when spectators seem to have been placed accidentally at hazard. There have been one or two rather nasty near-misses and one or two fatalities. The Board of Trade should direct its attention to this aspect of air displays.
The importance of air safety to the public will increase greatly as the number of passengers transported in a single aircraft increases, as it is likely to do in the years ahead. Once we get the 230-seater aircraft, the jumbo-jets, carrying large numbers of people through the air who may at any one time be placed at risk of their lives, the importance of air safety and the vital necessity to maintain the highest possible standards must become all the more obvious. I am certain that the Ministry of Aviation understands this and I have no doubt that the Board of Trade will equally understand it, but both should be aware that the public will want to know and to be assured that the matter is given the most serious consideration.
However, the Order will still leave the most important decisions about the transfer of functions to be resolved. Of course I accept that difficult and delicate and finely balanced decisions are involved. But I hope that there will be no decision of major significance announced except in the House. Announcement of decisions could probably be deferred until the House reassembles.
I hope that when they will be published, on or after 18th October, they will be published here, not through the columns of the Press for sure but while Parliament is sitting for certain, and that we shall have an opportunity to debate them. The mere fact that they are finely balanced decisons and not decisions which commend themselves one way or another on party political lines, makes it all the more important that Parliament should have an opportunity to debate them and that the expert


opinion on both sides should be brought to bear.
I hope—perhaps this is a political point—now that the industry has been given the prospect of getting on with constructing for B.E.A. in particular, but also I hope for world markets, civil aircraft which will satisfy domestic and world needs over the next 10 years there will be no doctrinaire determination on the Government's part to distract the industry from its task by imposing on management the confusion, the uncertainty and upheaval which would result—which must inevitably result—either of a forced merger of the two main manufacturing organisations or of governmental control. The aircraft industry is now in a position with its order books to go ahead on a healthy basis for the next five years. For heaven's sake let it be allowed to get on with this and do the job it is capable of doing. Do not muck up the whole thing by throwing a nationalisation spanner into the works.
We are witnessing the first stage of dismantling the Ministry of Aviation. I nevertheless still believe that activity in the air, whether it is defined as aviation activity or aerospace activity or whatever it may be, is and should be considered as

a composite unit with all the various branches connected one to another and related one to another. They must be discussed in connection with one another. While it may be arguable—I take the Minister's point—that where there are conflicting interests and conflicting points of view put forward for argument at Cabinet level, there may be advantage if this should be done by two, three or more Ministers each representing a point of view, for Parliament, the industry and the country there would be enormous advantage to derive from the establishment in this House of a specialist aviation or aerospace committee which could keep the whole matter under review.
I hope that this is a subject on which when we eventually get down to some suggestions about the formation of specialist committees the mind of the Government will be found to be not entirely closed. I am encouraged to see a half nod from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation. Perhaps before he and his functions finally disappear he will convert it into a whole nod.
I renew my apologies for not being present initially in this debate. I am grateful to have had the opportunity of putting these points to the Government.

Question put and negatived.

Orders of the Day — SECONDARY EDUCATION (NORTON-RADSTOCK)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

3.25 p.m.

Mr. Paul Dean: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter which causes deep concern to many of my constituents, especially in the large villages of Paulton and Timsbury and the smaller villages nearby. I am grateful also to the Minister of Stale for coming to reply to these arguments. I live in the village of Timsbury, but this in no way affects my decision to raise this matter. I have no more personal interest in this problem than I have in any other matters of concern to my constituents, in whatever parts of the constituency they live.
The governors of the existing Paulton and Timsbury secondary modern schools, the parish councils of the villages, many of the staff and the parents are strongly opposed to the proposals of the Somerset Education Committee for the reorganisation of education in this area. There are good reasons for this opposition. Paulton and Timsbury and the surrounding villages will get a raw deal if the proposals go through—they are not in the best interests of secondary education in the area.
I would make it clear that there is no controversy over reorganisation on comprehensive lines. This is generally accepted in the area. The controversy centres purely on the method by which the reorganisation should be carried out. The case which I wish to put is that there are strong arguments for a full and independent inquiry into this matter before any action is taken.
The reorganisation affects five schools—the grammar school at Midsomer Norton, the secondary modern schools at Midsomer Norton and Writhlington and the secondary modern schools at Paulton and Timsbury. Instead of these five schools, it is proposed to have two or, more likely, three comprehensive schools based on the existing schools at Midsomer Norton and Writhlington. Two of the existing schools are within the Norton-Radstock urban district and the other is on its boundary.
Before the principle of comprehensive reorganisation was laid down by the Government, the intention was that the existing secondary modern schools in Paulton and Timsbury should be replaced by one new secondary modern school in Timsbury to serve the whole area. This was firmly in the Education Committee's building programme for 1967–68, it was approved by the Department of Education and Science and the land for the school has been acquired by compulsory purchase. Under the new plan of the education committee, the new school will not now be built.
This whole question needs reconsideration, for several reasons. The first is that it is strongly felt in the area—I think, naturally—that the new school should proceed as planned, but that it should be a comprehensive school rather than a secondary modern school as originally envisaged. Second, if this new school is not built, Timsbury and Paulton will suffer a double blow. They will lose not only their existing school which they have had for many years but also the new school which was firmly promised and was firmly in the programme for next year.
This could, and, I believe, would, have serious repercussions on the education and social life of the area. It would also mean that the children of the smaller villages, who are at present served by the Paulton and Timsbury schools, would, in a number of cases, be a very long way from secondary education. These special circumstances deserve careful consideration.
The Minister will agree that if reorganisation is to succeed, it must not ride roughshod over local feelings. It is equally important that interest in our schools on the part of parents and the community generally should be encouraged. One of the most encouraging features in recent years has been the way in which interest in local schools has grown. But this will be discouraged if secondary schools in the country areas are centred on the largest centres of population.
In addition to these general arguments, two points are in dispute. The first concerns the likely school population of the area. Somerset Education Committee expects a 20-forms entry in the whole area by 1975, broadly divided into seven in the Midsomer Norton area, seven in the


Writhlington area and six in the Paulton-Timsbury area—yet the Paulton-Timsbury area, with an expected school population nearly as large as the Midsomer Norton area and nearly as large as the Writhlington area, is to have no secondary schools, while Midsomer Norton and Writhlington are to have two, possibly three.
On the basis of the county council's estimates of school population, it can be argued that the Paulton-Timsbury area has a strong case for its own school. However, population estimates are notoriously unreliable and it is believed locally that the county council's estimates will be substantially exceeded. Paulton and Timsbury in particular are growing fast now that their sewerage schemes are either completed or nearing completion. I am as convinced as it is possible to be—because this must, to some extent, be speculative—that the populations of these areas and the surrounding ones are almost certain to grow substantially in the coming years.
The second main point in dispute concerns the wishes of the people of the area. In deciding not to have a school in the Paulton-Timsbury area, the education committee has relied heavily on the alleged wishes of the parents of Paulton. It claims that these parents would prefer to send their children to Midsomer Norton, and possibly, the education committee says, there would not be sufficient children to make a viable, comprehensive school.
This claim is disputed by the Paulton school governors and others. The questionnaire which was sent to Paulton parents some time ago did not explain the proposals and implications of reorganisation. It is felt, I believe rightly, that the questionnaire was almost certain to produce the answer for Midsomer Norton.
Further, my information is that the education committee gave an undertaking that a meeting of Paulton parents would be held to explain the position. This meeting did not take place. But, whatever the preference of the Paulton parents may be in the light of the full facts, the views of the governors of the two schools at Paulton and Timsbury, the views of the parish councils of the two villages and the views of the parents in Timsbury are clear. They are in favour of the original proposals. Those views, in my opinion, have not been given

sufficient weight by the education committee.
I contend that, in the circumstances, only the most conclusive and indisputable evidence that local feeling had been accurately assessed can justify the withdrawal of secondary education from the Paulton-Timsbury area and I do not accept that the reasons advanced are conclusive or indisputable. I am very reluctant to criticise the Somerset Education Committee on this matter and I admit that the issues are exceedingly complex. It has had a very difficult job to do to try to reorganise in the area, bearing in mind the schools which exist, and one of the many complex factors it has rightly had to consider and bear in mind is the need for early improvements in the very difficult conditions in which the Writhlington school operates.
However, I am bound to say that, in trying to find a fair solution, the education committee has not produced an acceptable plan for Paulton and Timsbury and the surrounding villages. I am not asking the Minister of State to form a judgment at this moment. I know that he has not had sufficient time to be able to do so. What I do ask is that he will agree that the case has been made out for a full inquiry so that all concerned can have the opportunity of staling their case. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that this request is reasonable and will act on it.

3.38 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Edward Redhead): I appreciate very much the manner in which the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) has raised this matter. He has expressly stated that he is not opposing the introduction of comprehensive education as such into the area. He will, I am sure, pardon me if I say that that is a welcome and refreshing statement from the benches opposite. It is rare that we hear from hon. Members opposite an unqualified statement of that kind and I welcome him very much to the fold of those converted.

Mr. Dean: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to get the wrong impression. I make it clear that I am deliberately withholding my personal opinion of the pros and cons of this matter because I want it to be considered in the light of


local feeling and avoid any personal feelings I have being brought into it.

Mr. Redhead: Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that a Conservative Member should appreciate the introduction of comprehensive education. I hope that he will not be the last and that he will carry his conviction to many of his constituents.
The hon. Gentleman properly said that he is concerned most with the method that he understands is proposed by Somerset County Authority to introduce comprehensive education in the Norton-Radstock area. I shall confine myself to that limited question. The hon. Gentleman will understand that my reply is a little tentative in character. Indeed, he himself has acknowledged that I have had but little time to examine the proposals from Somerset in response to my right hon. Friend's Circular No. 10/65 calling upon it to put forward plans for the reorganisation of secondary education in the area, of which the Norton-Radstock district forms part.
The proposals of the county authority had not been officially received when the hon. Member originally gave notice to raise this matter today. They came in only during the last couple of days, along with a flood of such schemes which are now reaching us, I am very gratified to say. There has not yet been time to examine this plan in very close detail. What I have to say is therefore very largely based on information gleaned from preliminary inquiries. Of necessity, various matters to which the hon. Member has alluded will be the subject of further investigation and inquiry to satisfy ourselves as to the facts if there is, as there appears to be, some conflict of evidence on some of the points he has raised.
As the hon. Member said, there are five secondary schools in the area: the Midsomer Norton Grammar School, the Midsomer Norton Somervale Secondary Modern School, the Writhlington Secondary Modern School, the Timsbury Secondary Modern School and the Paul-ton Secondary Modern School. The authority's reorganisation scheme proposes the closure of the Timsbury and Paulton schools, both of which are old and inadequate. A project to replace

both these schools was included in the first part of the major building programme for 1967–68, which was announced in March, 1964. When proposals for the second part of that financial year came to be considered the authority already had in mind its intended scheme of reorganisation under Circular 10/65.
It therefore proposed that the allocation made for the replacement of Timsbury and Paulton schools for a new school at Timsbury Secondary School should be reallocated and applied to the new Midsomer Norton Grammar School, constituting it a five-form entry comprehensive school; the Somervale Secondary Modern School, to be reconstituted a five-form entry comprehensive school; and Writhlington Secondary Modern School, to be reconstituted a seven-form comprehensive school.
This modified programme was approved by the Secretary of State, but it was made clear that that approval was without prejudice to the Secretary of State's consideration of the eventual proposals of the authority in response to Circular 10/65, and it was also without prejudice to his eventual decision on proposals involving public notices under Section 13 of the Act.
The reorganisation scheme is therefore to close Timsbury and Paulton and to reorganise the three other schools—Midsomer Norton Grammar School, Somervale Secondary Modern School and Writhlington Secondary Modern School—as comprehensive schools, ultimately as six-form entry, six-form entry and eight-form entry respectively, it being anticipated, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, that the area as a whole will be productive by 1975 of 20 form entries.
The only suggested alternative, I understand, is that the Timsbury and Paulton schools should be replaced by a new comprehensive school of six-form entry for that area at Timsbury, as originally contemplated by the authority, that one of the Midsomer Norton schools should be reconstituted as a seven-form entry comprehensive school, and that Writhlington school should be reconstituted as a seven-form entry comprehensive school.
It is agreed that in Timsbury and Paulton combined the potential number of pupils to support a six-form entry school is to be anticipated. I shall come in a moment to the question whether this is an accurate estimate of the likely population growth. But the authority has gone to a great deal of trouble to ascertain the views of parents in Paulton, both of children now attending the secondary modern school and those with children in the contributory primary schools of Paulton, as to whether, when the Paulton school is closed, they would prefer their children to attend school at Timsbury or at Midsomer Norton.
The questionnaires were issued in December last year to all these parents. I am informed that more than 84 per cent. of the parents whose children attend Paulton Secondary Modern or Paulton Contributary Primary Schools opted for the Midsomer Norton proposal, while of the proportion of such parents who live in Paulton, 91 per cent. preferred Midsomer Norton. I take note of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman considers that these questionnaires were weighted in their phraseology in such a manner as inevitably to produce a preference of that kind.
I am bound to say, that having examined copies of the questionnaire, I find it difficult to accept the hon. Gentleman's point of view about that, but, nevertheless, I have taken note of it, and I have taken note of the fact that he feels that for one reason or another this was not fully appreciated by the parents, and that on reflection they have a somewhat different view from that which was gleaned from the answers.

Mr. Dean: I am sure that the Minister will recognise that those questionnaires did not in any way attempt to suggest the implications or the details. They merely asked the simple question, and that, in my view, in the light of the knowledge of local circumstances, the way in which people normally go to a shop, and that type of thing, would almost certainly produce the answer for Midsomer Norton.

Mr. Redhead: Nevertheless, and it is relevant to what I shall say in a moment, the authority subsequently, in May of this year, circularised all the parents concerned with a complete statement of its intentions under the reorganisation plan.

Judged from the response to these questionnaires, those people in Paulton who preferred Timsbury, plus those from Timsbury itself, were judged by the authority—and it would be justifiable for one to place reliance on these returns—as insufficient to support a viable school at Timsbury itself.
The hon. Gentleman referred to an alleged promise by the county authority that there should be a meeting of parents of the Timsbury and Paulton areas to consider this matter. I am informed that verification of the minutes and records of the appropriate meeting of the said council reveals no reference whatsoever to such a meeting, and I am told that it would be contrary to the authority's normal policy to undertake consultations in this context by means of meetings. This is my information, but I have taken note of what the hon. Gentleman said.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that both he and those for whom he speaks in the area have considerable doubts about whether the authority has taken due account of the expected rise in population in the Timsbury and Paulton areas, and he alleges that it is rising faster than has been assumed by the county authority in these proposals. Thus far at any rate I have found no apparent evidence to support that suggestion, but I am informed that since the hon. Gentleman expressed this view in communications to the authority, further reference has been made to the area planning officer who has confirmed his original advice, and confirmed that in his opinion there is no justification for the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman in this respect.
I want to make it quite clear to the hon. Gentleman that in answering him in this tentative fashion I am not closing the door to the fullest possible consideration of the proposals submitted by the authority in response to Circular 10/65. The hon. Gentleman has asked for a public inquiry of an independent character into the whole of this issue so far as it affects this area. I presume that he has in mind a public inquiry to be held under section 93 of the 1944 Education Act, which would enable evidence to be given by interested parties to an independent inspector.
I am bound to admit that it has not been the practice in matters of this kind


to exercise the opportunity to call a public inquiry, nor do we feel that it would serve any useful purpose in a case of this character, when all the relevant information can be made available by other means.
In the first instance, may I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the scheme of the Somerset authority in its entirety which is now under consideration by the Secretary of State is one on which any body of persons with a view locally about it is perfectly free to communicate with the Secretary of State stating the objections, whatever they may be. I give him the assurance that in common with all other schemes of this kind, objections of that character will be carefully considered before the Secretary of State expresses his view about the authority's proposal.
As I have said, the authority has already issued a general statement to all parents concerned about the nature of its proposals and their purposes, and it has advised parents who have any views to offer in relation to those proposals to communicate with the authority itself. I must also make it clear that it is open to any person concerned to make representations direct to the Secretary of State, and I offer the assurance that any such representations will be carefully considered.

Mr. Dean: May I get this clear? Do I understand that the representations to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred would be under Section 13?

Mr. Redhead: I was coming to that. What I have referred to so far are representations that can be made in an informal way. There is no statutory provision for them at all. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that no statutory approval is required for schemes of reorganisation in general. However, when such schemes involve the closure or enlargement of schools, as they do in this instance, they will require the issue of public notices under Section 13 of the Education Act, 1944.
The proposals which concern us today will require the specific statutory approval of the Secretary of State. The notices

having been issued in due form as required by the Statute, the Secretary of State cannot give his decision upon them until after the expiry of two months from the date of the notices, during which period it is competent for the governors of any affected school or any 10 local government electors to lodge statutory objections to the proposals. Those must be considered by the Secretary of State before he gives his final decision on the proposals which are made.
Both generally and specifically, in regard to Section 13 cases, I think that the hon. Gentleman will be assured that there will be adequate opportunity for all points of view to be submitted to the Secretary of State, for all objections to be considered, and for an opportunity to check any question of a conflict of evidence that may have been revealed in the course of this short debate.
I would add that the hon. Gentleman's own observations, which I appreciate come from a direct personal knowledge because he lives in what must be the very delightful village of Timsbury, will similarly be taken into account before decisions are reached on these proposals. That is consistent with the attitude which the Department is adopting to all proposals submitted in response to Circular No. 10/65. It cannot be too widely appreciated that these plans are not being lightly treated. We are not just giving easy decisions about them. We require to be satisfied that any proposals not only bear the mark, stamp and label of being comprehensive proposals but that they are calculated to fulfil the purposes and objectives of comprehensive secondary education.
These opportunities will be available following the issue of these notices on the Section 13 cases, and I once again give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that all valid objections and representations will be most carefully considered. I hope that he will feel assured that his purpose in asking for a public inquiry will be as amply fulfilled by the opportunities to which I have alluded.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Four o'clock.